Court Opinion

ID: 9742866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:21:56.828405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:37.312942
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Ward, dissenting: I would declare that the provision drawn by Wolverine to avoid or reduce its liability to policyholders is contrary to the legislative purpose and to public policy. The opinion of the majority is founded on the mistaken conclusion, or better, I consider, the mistaken assumption that the statute requiring uninsured motorists coverage has the purpose of providing the same character of protection, and no more, for the policyholder that he would have had if the tortfeasor had had insurance in the minimum amounts of $io,ooo/$20,ooo required by the Financial Responsibility Law. The legislative intention was that the uninsured motorist should have protection through insurance in an amount not less than the limits prescribed for persons governed by the Financial Responsibility Law. There is nothing else in the uninsured motorist statute to suggest that the legislature intended to equate the protection to be provided and the rights of the assured with rights and limitations of rights under the Financial Responsibility Law. The assumption that the uninsured motorist’s statute was intended to place a policyholder only in the position he would occupy had the tortfeasor had the minimum liability insurance required by the Financial Responsibility Law, is, apart from the question of minimal limits, basically gratuitous. The legislature knew the driving public would be paying premiums for the coverage the legislature was making mandatory. It is plainly reasonable to say the legislature anticipated that motorists thus insured might acquire benefits that would not otherwise have been available to them. The opinion of the majority stresses the obligation of an employee in Illinois who recovers damages from a tortfeasor to reimburse his employer for compensation which has been paid to the employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Because of this duty the majority concludes that the policy provision here is not contrary to the legislative intendment underlying the statutory requirement of uninsured motorists coverage. It was intended, in the view of the majority, that one insured under an uninsured motorists provision might recover to the extent, and only to that extent, that he would recover had the tortfeasor had the minimum liability insurance required by the Financial Responsibility Law. To me, this view is misguided. The basis for the obligation of an employee to reimburse his employer compensation benefits paid is to prevent an unjust enrichment, that is, to prevent the employee from retaining compensation paid by the employer and also damages from the tortfeasor. In Reno v. Maryland Casualty Co., 27 Ill. 2d 245, at 248, we said: “The underlying basis of the employer’s right to subrogation is the prevention of an unjust enrichment on the part of the employee in the form of a double recovery for the same injury,” and in Geneva Construction Co. v. Martin Transportation Co., 4 Ill. 2d 273, at 284, it was said: “If the non-negligent employer is deprived of his right of subrogation, it woud result in the unjust enrichment of the employee, who could retain both compensation and damages, thereby violating a basic tenet of the common law that there may not be a double satisfaction for the same wrong. In fact, that common-law principle has been deemed to be the basis for the enactment of the various statutory subrogation provisions.” This rationale has no pertinency here. There is no reason to prohibit a so-called double recovery when one of the recoveries by the employee, i.e., the one against an insurance company, is founded in contract and has been made possible by the employee’s payment of premiums. An employee’s recovery against an insured motorist is founded in tort. However, his 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’s 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. The majority is concerned by the possibility that if the provision is held contrary to public policy it would mean that the injured employee’s extent of recovery would hinge on the fortuitous circumstance that the tortfeasor was uninsured. If this is really a cause for concern this concern should be dissipated by a recognition that the employee’s recovery against the uninsured driver would be based on this insurance contract for which the employee would have paid a premium to cover the fortuity that he might sustain damage by the conduct of an uninsured driver. What concerns me is the implicit construction by the majority that the legislature intended to permit an insurance carrier, by restricting its liability, as here, to financially advantage itself by the fortuitous circumstance that its insured when killed or injured was within the protection of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I would hold that the restricting provision frustrates the legislative purpose to provide insurance for those “who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners and operators of uninsured motor vehicles” and is contrary to public policy. Mr. Justice Schaefer joins in this dissent.