Court Opinion

ID: 9739287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:11:44.19145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.352413
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, also dissenting: While it is true that a statutory amendment creates a presumption that the legislature intended to change the law as it previously existed, I believe that in the present case such presumption is not controlling, having been overcome by more persuasive considerations. Bruni v. Department of Registration & Education (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 6,12. By enacting section 143a — 2, the legislature intended that all classes of automobile owners become aware that there existed underinsured motorist coverage. This consumer awareness, and hence protection, was achieved by requiring that insurers make a meaningful offer of such coverage. It makes little sense that the legislature would eliminate such an encompassing requirement by an amendment which merely mandates the policy inclusion of a minimal level of underinsured motorist coverage for one particular class of insured automobile owners. Furthermore, I am not convinced, as is the majority, that the plain meaning of the 1989 version of the statute necessarily supports the view that no meaningful offer was required under the 1983 version. I therefore agree with and respectfully join the dissent of Justice Bilandic.