Court Opinion

ID: 9528468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:27.140785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:16.380978
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Underwood, dissenting: I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the Court. The rationale of the opinion seems to me to be totally inconsistent with our earlier decisions in Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 48 Ill.2d 71, and Uliman v. Wolverine Insurance Co., 48 Ill.2d 1. While I certainly favor the simplification of insurance policy provisions, we must deal with those provisions as they appear. It is to me clear that the policy provisions do not provide coverage in the circumstances here. It is to me equally clear that the policy provisions do not contravene the requirements of the statute. As I understand the opinion of the court, it concedes the absence of coverage under the terms of the policy, but then finds “no justification” for the fact that coverage is not provided. If the public policy of this State be thought to require expanded coverage, the General Assembly is the proper forum for resolution of that question, not the courts.