Court Opinion

ID: 9709573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:51:19.460131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:50.223811
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The decision in Ullman v. Wolverine Insurance Co. (1970), 48 Ill. 2d 1, upon which this opinion rests, is based on a faulty premise rendered nó less fallacious by the passage of time. As Mr. Justice Ward’s dissent in Ullman so eloquently states it, the recovery “in the case of an uninsured tortfeasor is based on a contract the employee has had with a third person, i.e., the insurance company, which for a premium provided him with uninsured motorist coverage. There can be no well-founded objection to a so-called double recovery under these circumstances. To deny the employee full recovery is to cause, as I see it, an unjust enrichment of the insurance company to which premiums have been paid.” (48 Ill. 2d 1, 10.) Ullman was wrongly decided and we should not perpetuate error in the manner which the majority opinion does in this case. WARD, C.J., and MORAN, J., join in this dissent.