Court Opinion

ID: 9742140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:07:27.483597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:05.675473
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: Like my colleagues in the plurality, I believe that Country Mutual Insurance Company is obligated to pay its insured’s claim for underinsured-motorist coverage. I cannot, however, ascribe to the rationale employed by the plurality in reaching that conclusion. Rather, I would take a different approach to resolving this case, one which more fully comports with the intent of the General Assembly when it drafted section 143a — 2(4) of the Illinois Insurance Code. I The dispositive issue in this case is whether Cummins is entitled to underinsured-motorist coverage under Illinois law. The resolution of this issue turns upon the definition of the term "underinsured motor vehicle” found in section 143a — 2(4). That provision provides in pertinent part: "[T]he term 'underinsured motor vehicle’ means a motor vehicle whose ownership, maintenance or use has resulted in bodily injury or death of the insured, as defined in the policy, and for which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability insurance policies or under bonds or other security required to be maintained under Illinois law applicable to the driver or to the person or organization legally responsible for such vehicle and applicable to the vehicle, is less than the limits for underinsured coverage provided the insured as defined in the policy at the time of the accident. The limits of liability for an insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage shall be the limits of such coverage, less those amounts actually recovered under the applicable bodily injury insurance policies, bonds or other security maintained on the underinsured motor vehicle.” 215 ILCS 5/143a — 2(4) (West 1992). A careful review of the foregoing language reveals that section 143a — 2(4) establishes a two-part inquiry which must be utilized in determining whether an insured is entitled to underinsured-motorist coverage in any given case. The first step of the inquiry requires us to determine whether the "motor vehicle whose ownership, maintenance or use has resulted in bodily injury or death of the insured” is, in fact, an "underinsured motor vehicle.” 215 ILCS 5/143a — 2(4) (West 1992). To that end, the first sentence of section 143a — 2(4) tells us that such a vehicle is so defined when its limits of liability are "/ess than the limits for underinsured coverage provided the insured” in his or her underinsurance policy at the time of the accident. (Emphasis added.) 215 ILCS 5/143a — 2(4) (West 1992). Once the vehicle qualifies as an underinsured motor vehicle under the first sentence of the statute, the second step of the inquiry requires us to next determine how much recovery, if any, is to be permitted to the insured from his or her underinsurance carrier. The second sentence of the statute provides the answer — recovery is limited to "the limits of [the underinsured policy] less those amounts actually recovered under the applicable bodily injury insurance policies, bonds or other security maintained on the underinsured motor vehicle.” 215 ILCS 5/143a — 2(4) (West 1992). Put another way, the second sentence of the underinsured-motorist statute limits the underinsured-motorist payment to the limit of the underinsured coverage, less any proceeds received from the at-fault driver’s policy. Applying this two-step inquiry to the facts in this case, it becomes readily apparent that the vehicle which injured Cummins is not, in fact, an underinsured vehicle, at least according to a strict or literal reading of the definition of such a vehicle as set forth in the first sentence of section 143a — 2(4). This result obtains because Cummins’ underinsured policy limits, i.e., $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident, are equal to the liability limits carried by the at-fault driver, i.e., $50,000 per person /$100,000 per accident. Thus, because the at-fault driver’s vehicle does not qualify as an underinsured motor vehicle under the first sentence of section 143a — 2(4), there' is no need to look to the second sentence which pertains to the amount Cummins is entitled to recover. The plurality, however, ignores the plain language of the first sentence of section 143a —2(4) and, looking to the second sentence, declares that the statute "recognizes that injured parties may recover the difference between their underinsured-motorist policy limits and the amount they actually recover from the at-fault driver’s liability insurance.” 178 Ill. 2d at 482. Having conflated the two sentences, and thereby obliterating the two-step inquiry established in the statute, my colleagues insist that the first sentence cannot prevent a recovery of insurance proceeds "when the very next sentence authorizes the recovery.” 178 Ill. 2d at 482. I, however, cannot concur in the plurality’s assertion that the second sentence "authorizes the recovery.” As I pointed out above, it is the first sentence of section 143a — 2(4), and the first sentence alone, which controls the inquiry into whether the at-fault vehicle can be deemed an "under-insured motor vehicle.” Because there is no underinsured vehicle involved in this case by operation of that first sentence, the second sentence of section 143a — 2(4) is wholly irrelevant. For this reason, I do not believe the plurality’s analysis can withstand scrutiny. II Having set forth the reasons why I consider the plurality’s interpretation of section 143a — 2(4) to be flawed, I will now explain why I believe that underinsurance coverage is nevertheless mandated in this case. This court has long recognized that the proper interpretation of any statutory enactment cannot be based solely upon the bare language of the statute in question, but "must be grounded on the 'nature, objects and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other.’ ” Mulligan v. Joliet Regional Port District, 123 Ill. 2d 303, 313 (1988), quoting Carrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n, 19 Ill. 2d 230, 233 (1960). To that end, this court has cautioned that " '[w]hen the literal enforcement of a statute would result in great injustice and lead to consequences which the legislature could not have contemplated, the courts are bound to presume that such consequences were not intended and will adopt a construction which it may be reasonable to presume was contemplated by the Legislature.’ ” People ex rel. Cason v. Ring, 41 Ill. 2d 305, 312-13 (1968), quoting Village of Glencoe v. Hurford, 317 Ill. 203, 220 (1925). Accordingly, courts will not construe a statute in such a way as to produce an absurd result. Croissant v. Joliet Park District, 141 Ill. 2d 449 (1990). The record in this case reveals that Cummins was not the only claimant to the proceeds available under the at-fault driver’s liability policy. In fact, the other claimants had already exhausted those proceeds by the time Cummins received his court-approved, good-faith settlement from the at-fault driver. Therefore, although a face-value comparison may well reveal that Cummins’ underinsured-motorist limits and the at-fault driver’s liability limits are equal on paper, those amounts, in reality, are unequal due to the fact that the at-fault driver’s resources have been depleted by the previous payouts to the other claimants to the policy. Under these circumstances, an absurd and unfair result obtains when the precise language in the first sentence of section 143a— 2(4) is applied to Cummins. This is best reflected in a example given by Justice Maag in his special concurrence to the appellate court’s opinion in this case: "Assume that an automobile accident occurs. Assume further that the driver of vehicle 'A’ is negligent and is the cause of the accident. The driver of vehicle 'A’ carries $25,000 in liability coverage. The driver of vehicle 'B’ carries $25,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. Finally, assume that in vehicle 'B’ there is one passenger along with the driver of vehicle 'B.’ If the passenger in vehicle 'B’ immediately files suit and is awarded $25,000, and if the judgment is paid in full by driver 'A’ ’s liability policy, then there would be no coverage left under driver 'A’ ’s policy to pay a judgment later rendered in favor of the driver of vehicle ’B.’ The driver of vehicle 'B,’ despite having paid his insurance premium dutifully, would not be entitled to recover anything under his own underinsured motorist coverage if the position of Country Mutual in the instant case was adopted.” (Emphasis omitted.) 281 Ill. App. 3d 5, 15 (Maag, J., specially concurring). I simply cannot believe that the legislature intended underinsured-motorist coverage in this state to be dependent upon the fortuity of being involved in an accident in which only a single person is injured and hence only a single claim is made against the at-fault driver’s liability policy. I should also point out that, under the above hypothetical, the driver of vehicle "B” would have been in a better position had the driver of vehicle "A” been uninsured. At least then driver "B” could have recovered benefits pursuant to his or her uninsured-motorist coverage. Such results, of course, are absurd. They also contravene, rather than further, the General Assembly’s stated purpose in drafting section 143a — 2(4). My research into the legislative history of section 143a — 2(4) reveals that the statutory requirement that insurance companies offer underinsured-motorist coverage grew out of legislators’ desire to provide compensation for victims of inadequately insured motorists. The General Assembly designed underinsured-motorist coverage so that consumers could have the "opportunity to protect [themselves]” from at-fault drivers who carry only minimal amounts of liability insurance. 81st Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, June 20, 1980, at 48 (statements of Representative Epton). For this reason, the legislation was regarded as one which acted on "behalf of the consumer.” 81st Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, June 20, 1980, at 48 (statements of Representative Epton). Specifically, the legislature intended to put the injured insured in the same position he or she would have occupied had the at-fault driver carried liability coverage equal to the insured’s underinsuredmotorist coverage. 81st Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, June 20, 1980, at 44-45 (statement of Representative Telcser). This was done in order to "fill the gap between the claim [of the injured insured] and the amount available from the underinsured.” 81st Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, June 20, 1980, at 44-45 (statement of Representative Telcser). Each of these objectives is thwarted, however, if the definition of an "underinsured motor vehicle” is given its literal meaning in a situation where, as in this case, multiple claimants are involved. Significantly, the legislative debates are devoid of any indicia that the members of the General Assembly ever addressed or considered the somewhat infrequent multiple-claimant situation with which we are confronted today. In view of the foregoing, I believe that in situations involving multiple claimants, a literal interpretation of section 143a — 2(4) "would result in great injustice and lead to consequences which the legislature could not have contemplated” or intended. Ring, 41 Ill. 2d at 312. Accordingly, I believe that in such cases, the judiciary is "bound to *** adopt a construction which [may] be reasonable to presume was contemplated by the legislature.” Ring, 41 Ill. 2d at 313. In order to do so, we must construe the first sentence of section 143a — 2(4) so that the vehicle of the at-fault driver will be deemed an "underinsured motor vehicle” whenever the amount of that driver’s liability coverage becomes less than the amount of the insured’s underinsured-motorist coverage because of a payment of proceeds to other claimants. Only in this way can we be certain to effectuate the General Assembly’s intent in enacting underinsured-motorist legislation and, at the same time, avoid the absurd results which occur whenever multiple claimants are involved. Applying my analysis to the facts of the present case, the vehicle of the at-fault driver should be considered an "underinsured motor vehicle” with respect to Cummins. In my opinion, it is this interpretation of section 143a — 2(4), and not the interpretation proffered by the plurality, that obligates Country Mutual Insurance Company to pay Cummins’ claim for underinsured-motorist coverage in this case. JUSTICE McMORROW joins in this special concurrence.