Court Opinion

ID: 9521824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:12:41.837369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:10.575153
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, dissenting: I deem the exclusionary clause to be unambiguous and not requiring construction. Accordingly, I dissent. Section 11 — 304 of the Illinois Vehicle Code which plaintiffs were charged to have violated directed highway commissioners to place and maintain traffic control devices “upon highways under their maintenance jurisdiction” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 95½, par. 11— 304.) The policy clause in question excludes coverage of claims “arising out of the existence of any highways * * * maintained ° * * by the named insured.” (Emphasis added.) The duty alleged to have been breached arose from the existence of a highway maintained by plaintiffs. Section 11 — 304 makes no mention of the use of the highway being a precondition of the commissioner’s duty to place and maintain the control device. Of course, no claim would have arisen if the highways had not been used. However, in order to avoid ambiguity, an exclusionary provision of a liability policy need not set forth every antecedent necessary to give rise to the type of claim sought to be excluded. I do not consider express reference in the exclusionary clause to claims arising from maintenance or placement of stop signs to have been necessary to exclude the Oye claim.