Court Opinion

ID: 9534289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:22.186435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:09.204345
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, specially concurring: I specially concur. I agree with the majority that Indiana law applies. The Illinois Insurance Code permits out-of-state insurance companies to issue policies in conformance with the laws of their respective states: “The policies of a company, not organized under the laws of this State, may contain any provision which the law of the state or country under which the company is organized prescribes shall be in such policies when issued in this State, and the policies of such insurance company organized under the laws of this State may, when issued or delivered in any other state or country, contain any provisions required by the laws of the state or country in which the same are issued, anything in this Code to the contrary notwithstanding.” 215 ILCS 5/443 (West 2006). However, I write separately to note the contradiction within the Insurance Code. All drivers of vehicles in Illinois must possess mandatory minimum UIM and underinsured (UDIM) insurance but vehicles registered in another state need only possess insurance in conformance with the other state’s laws. Illinois public policy mandates $20,000/$40,000 limits on UIM and UDIM coverage. Simply put, drivers in Illinois, whether residents or not, are required to possess those insurance limits to drive upon the roads in Illinois. Absolute liability lies for failure to possess those insurance limits: “Section 3 — 707 is the penalty provision for violation of the mandatory insurance provisions of the Code. See 625 ILCS 5/7— 601, 7 — 602 (West 2000). The purpose to be achieved, then, is enforcement of the mandatory insurance requirement, which was instituted for the protection of the public (see State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 285 Ill. App. 3d 115, 120-21[, 674 N.E.2d 52, 55-56] (1996)), and to promote public safety and financial responsibility (see 625 ILCS 5/7 — 100 through 7 — 708 (West 2000) (‘Illinois Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law’)). In the legislature’s words, ‘the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that drivers *** demonstrate financial responsibility, including family financial responsibility, *** in order to safely own and operate a motor vehicle.’ See 625 ILCS 5/7 — 701 (West 2000). Thus, the legislature, in its wisdom, has determined that important public interests are served by eliminating uninsured vehicles from the roads of this state. It makes sense, then, that they should place an absolute obligation on the operators, who are directly responsible for placing a motor vehicle on the road, to ascertain the insured status of the motor vehicle or suffer the consequences. Thus, section 3 — 707, which defines the penalty for a violation of the mandatory insurance requirements set forth in sections 7 — 601 of the Code, is appropriately read as imposing absolute liability and expressing the public policy of Illinois.” People v. O’Brien, 197 Ill. 2d 88, 99-100, 754 N.E.2d 327, 334 (2001). Further, Illinois law, contrary to Indiana law, mandates those minimum limits on the vehicle regardless of the operator. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 226 Ill. 2d 395, 411, 875 N.E.2d 1096, 1105 (2007). See also this recently enacted provision of the Insurance Code: “Any policy of private passenger automobile insurance must provide the same limits of bodily injury liability, property damage liability, [UIM] and [UDIM] bodily injury, and medical payments coverage to all persons insured under that policy, whether or not an insured person is a named insured or permissive user under the policy. If the policy insures more than one private passenger automobile, the limits available to the permissive user shall be the limits associated with the vehicle used by the permissive user when the loss occurs.” Pub. Act 95 — 395, §5, eff. January 1, 2008 (adding 215 ILCS 5/143.13a) (2007 Ill. Legis. Serv. 4757 (West)). Clearly, Wilma Frye, the deceased, should have been insured here in compliance with the mandatory insurance public-policy requirement of Illinois. But, in effect, the majority permits an uninsured vehicle to be driven upon the roads of this state, contrary to the public policy of our state. Both Wilma Frye and her husband, Joseph Frye, were in violation of that public policy and the statutory mandate of such sections as section 7 — 601, for example, when driving and permitting the operation of their vehicle in Illinois. Both could have been prosecuted for that violation under our absolute-liability statute governing drivers, even though their Indiana insurance company bore no responsibility to comply with the mandatory insurance laws of Illinois.