Court Opinion

ID: 9404986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 20:05:14.165184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.174509
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
            in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                        2023 IL App (3d) 220169-U

                                   Order filed June 26, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                            THIRD DISTRICT

                                                    2023

      RICHARD B. HENRY,                               )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                      )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
             Plaintiff-Appellant,                     )       Will County, Illinois,
                                                      )
             v.                                       )       Appeal No. 3-22-0169
                                                      )       Circuit No. 20-L-1059
                                                      )
      NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY,                   )       Honorable
                                                      )       John C. Anderson,
             Defendant-Appellee.                      )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Albrecht and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                ORDER

¶1          Held: The trial court properly granted summary judgment to insurer where evidence
                  established that automobile policy lapsed prior to accident due to insured’s failure
                  to pay his renewal premium.

¶2          Plaintiff, Richard B. Henry, filed a complaint against defendant, Nationwide Insurance

     Company (Nationwide), alleging that Nationwide failed to pay a claim under his automobile

     policy. The circuit court granted Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the

     policy had lapsed because of non-payment. We affirm.
¶3                                         I. BACKGROUND

¶4          Henry had an insurance policy with Nationwide that provided coverage for his vehicle.

     The “Insuring Agreement” provision of the policy stated: “The selected coverages in this policy

     apply only to occurrences while this policy is in force. Renewal premiums for terms of six

     months each must be paid in advance.”

¶5          On January 7, 2017, Nationwide informed Henry that his policy would lapse, effective

     January 9, 2017, if he failed to pay the renewal premium before January 9. That same day, Henry

     contacted an agent at Nationwide and inquired about an extension of time for the payment. The

     agent advised him that the payment deadline could not be extended. After concluding the phone

     call, Henry attempted to pay the renewal premium online. He did not receive a confirmation

     email stating that his payment had been processed or accepted.

¶6          On January 9, 2017, around 6:53 p.m., Henry suffered injuries in an automobile accident.

     On the morning of January 10, he filed a claim under his Nationwide policy. He spoke with

     claims representative Rebekah Caldwell, who logged his information and assigned him a claim

     number. That afternoon, he received an email verifying that a claim had been filed.

¶7          On January 11, 2017, Caldwell called Henry and informed him that his claim had been

     denied because his policy lapsed on January 9, 2017, at 12:01 a.m. At Henry’s request,

     Nationwide investigated the issue. On January 19, 2017, Nationwide claims specialist Jason

     Burns sent Henry a letter summarizing that, following a review, Nationwide had confirmed that

     it received no renewal payment on the policy and that the policy lapsed as of January 9, 2017.

¶8          On December 30, 2020, Henry filed an unsworn pro se complaint alleging that

     Nationwide owed him a duty and breached its contractual obligation by failing to provide

     coverage for the January 9, 2017, accident. On November 3, 2021, after numerous motions and

                                                     2
       amended pleadings, Henry filed an amended complaint alleging that: (1) on January 7, 2017, he

       contacted Nationwide requesting an extension to pay his insurance premium, and Nationwide

       denied his request; (2) on the same day, he made an online payment to Nationwide for “$217,

       and some change[;]” and (3) on the night of the accident, he was still insured under the policy.

¶9            Nationwide answered the complaint and moved for summary judgment. It explained that

       the full amount required to keep the policy in effect was $260.38 and that Henry logged into his

       account on January 7, 2017, but never completed the online payment. Burns’s affidavit, which

       was attached to the motion, averred that Henry did not complete his payment on January 7, 2017.

       Burns stated that he “reviewed the Account Activity for Mr. Henry’s [a]ccount and determined

       that Mr. Henry started, but never completed the payment on January 7, 2017.” A copy of Henry’s

       online payment portal was attached to the affidavit. It showed that on January 7, 2017, Henry

       entered $260.38 as the payment amount and provided his credit card information but did not

       click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the form. Nationwide also provided Henry’s response

       to requests to produce in which he stated that the “payment was never processed” and he had no

       documents in support of his allegation that he paid his policy balance on January 7, 2017.

¶ 10          The trial court entered judgment in Nationwide’s favor, concluding that Henry failed to

       present sufficient admissible evidence to oppose the motion. Henry’s motion to reconsider was

       denied, and he appeals.

¶ 11                                            II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12          Henry argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Nationwide

       because the evidence established that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident and that

       Nationwide breached the contract by failing to fulfill its terms.

                                                        3
¶ 13           Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, affidavits, depositions,

       admissions, and exhibits on file, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,

       reveal that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment

       as a matter of law. Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2004); 735 ILCS 5/2–

       1005(c) (West 2020). “A genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment exists

       where the material facts are disputed, or, if the material facts are undisputed, reasonable persons

       might draw different inferences from the undisputed facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

       Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486, ¶ 12. When examining whether a genuine issue of

       material fact exists, a court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

       party and strictly against the moving party. Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 2019 IL 122654, ¶ 22.

¶ 14           “Summary judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and ‘should be allowed

       only when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt.” Adams, 211 Ill. 2d at 43.

       Although a nonmoving party “is not required to prove his or her case, the nonmovant must

       present a factual basis arguably entitling that party to a judgment.” Horwitz v. Holabird & Root,

       212 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2004). “If the plaintiff fails to establish an element of the cause of action,

       summary judgment for the defendant is proper.” Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 154,

       163 (2007). A trial court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Monson, 2018 IL

       122486, ¶ 12.

¶ 15           Insurance policies are contracts and subject to the same rules that govern contract

       interpretation. Hacker v. Shelter Insurance Co., 388 Ill. App. 3d 386, 389 (2009). To plead and

       prove breach of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable

       contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of contract by the defendant; and (4)

                                                          4
       resulting injury to the plaintiff. Elson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 295 Ill. App. 3d 1, 6

       (1998).

¶ 16             Here, Henry maintains he alleged sufficient facts to establish that the policy was valid

       and enforceable at the time of the accident. A policy is no longer in effect when it lapses based

       on nonpayment of a premium. See Hunter v. West American Insurance Co., 95 Ill. App. 3d 108,

       110 (1981) (“ ‘lapse’ refers to the automatic expiration of a policy at the end of the policy

       period”). Once a policy automatically expires based on nonpayment, coverage ceases and the

       insurer has no obligation to pay the insured for a post-lapse claim. See Omar v. St. Paul Fire &

       Marine Insurance Co., 175 Ill. App. 3d 77, 82-84 (1988) (finding summary judgment to

       insurance company appropriate where the plaintiff’s failure to promptly pay renewal premium

       resulted in a lapse of coverage before the date of his claim); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.

       Hollerich & Walgenbach Co., 22 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164 (1974) (insurer was not obligated to pay

       claim where policy had already expired because of non-payment of premiums).

¶ 17             In this case, Nationwide informed Henry that his policy would lapse on January 9, 2017,

       at 12:01 a.m. if he failed to pay the renewal premium by that date. The undisputed facts

       demonstrate that Henry did not complete his payment by January 9, and his policy lapsed before

       the accident occurred. He claims that the facts are disputable because there is evidence in his

       account activity that he made a payment on January 7, 2017. We disagree. Nothing in the record

       demonstrates that Henry paid the renewal premium in full before the payment deadline. The

       payment activity on his online portal indicates that he attempted to make a payment but failed to

       complete it. And Henry put forth no other evidence to show that he paid the renewal premium on

       or before the due date. Accordingly, the policy lapsed, and no valid contract existed when the

       accident occurred.

                                                          5
¶ 18          Henry insists that Nationwide is not entitled to summary judgment because Nationwide

       “cannot provide documents from Plaintiff’s account that Plaintiff did not make a payment on his

       insurance premium.” Contrary to Henry’s claim, Burns’s affidavit and the payment portal

       document establish that Nationwide did not receive a premium payment. Although Henry alleged

       in his complaint that he made a payment of “$217, and some change,” he failed to produce any

       evidence supporting that claim. Even if we assume that allegation to be true, he failed to pay the

       full amount required to keep the policy in effect. Because Henry cannot establish the existence of

       a valid and enforceable policy at the time of the accident, the trial court properly granted

       summary judgment to Nationwide.

¶ 19                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 20          The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 21          Affirmed.

                                                        6