Opinion ID: 1899742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Medical Expense Coverage

Text: Unlike uninsured motorist coverage, no statute mandates that automobile liability insurance policies include medical expense coverage. The medical expense coverage, therefore, is governed by the terms of each insurance policy in which such coverage is provided. Part 2 of the insurance policy issued by the Defendant Company is entitled Automobile Medical Expense Coverage. It provides: METROPOLITAN will pay promptly when due, to or for the benefit of each eligible injured person, reasonable medical expenses incurred for services furnished within one year from the date of accident for bodily injury caused by accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading and unloading, of an automobile (emphasis in original). In the Declarations under the general heading Coverages Applicable and Limits of Liability, automobile medical expense is listed as $5,000 per accident. The Declarations alone clearly and unambiguously define the maximum policy limit for medical expense coverage. Under the heading, Limits of Liability, the insurance policy provides in pertinent part: Regardless of the number of . . . automobiles or trailers to which this policy applies, METROPOLITAN's liability is limited as follows: Automobile Medical Expense Coverage The limit for Automobile Medical Expense Coverage stated in the Declarations as applicable to each person is the limit of METROPOLITAN's liability for all medical expense incurred by or on behalf of each person who sustains bodily injury as the result of any one accident; . . . (emphasis in original). This clause buttresses the statement in the Declarations that the maximum policy limit for medical expense coverage is $5,000 per accident. See Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Company, supra ; Phillips v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of the Chicago Motor Club, 91 Ill.App.3d 198, 46 Ill.Dec. 504, 414 N.E.2d 226 (1980); Lane v. Fireman's Insurance Company, 344 So.2d 702 (La.App.1977). Payment of an additional premium for medical expense coverage on the second vehicle by itself does not justify stacking of the medical expense coverage. In consideration for the second premium charged, medical expense coverage is provided to non-relatives of the insured while they (1) are guests or passengers in the second vehicle; (2) are using the second vehicle with the insured's permission; or (3) are struck by the second vehicle. See Lane v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, supra at 704. Although we note that the insurance policy issued by the Defendant company contains additional language which limits or excludes uninsured motorist and medical expense coverage, we do not evaluate this language because it is unnecessary to our decision in this case. Under the insurance policy at issue here, the limits are clearly stated in the Declarations. The limiting or exclusionary language does not increase the maximum policy limit, and the Defendant company does not contend that such language decreases its liability below $55,000. The entry, therefore, will be: Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed. All concurring.