Chatlas v. Allstate Insurance Company

THIRD DIVISION
June 30, 2008
No. 1-07-2937
CAROLE J. CHATLAS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County.
)
v. )
)
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Honorable
) Dorothy Kirie Kinnaird,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action against defendant, seeking a declaration that
plaintiff was entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage in the same amount as
her bodily injury liability limits of $250,000. Plaintiff’s claim was based on defendant’s alleged
failure to comply with the provisions of section 143a-2 of the Illinois Insurance Code (Code)
(215 ILCS 5/143a-2 (West 1994)), which require insurers to offer uninsured/underinsured
motorist coverage up to the limits of bodily injury liability in a policy. Defendant maintained
that it fully complied with the provisions of the Code because plaintiff rejected offers of
increased UIM coverage and plaintiff’s policy at issue was a renewal policy, which did not
require defendant to send a new offer of UIM coverage. Cross-motions for summary judgment
1-07-2937
were filed by the parties. The circuit court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment
and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred by determining that her insurance
policy was a renewal of a previous policy which did not require that defendant offer increased
UIM coverage. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to reformation of her insurance policy to
provide UIM coverage equal to the bodily injury liability limits of her policy. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
The facts of this case are not disputed. Beginning in 1980, plaintiff maintained an
automobile insurance policy with defendant and plaintiff received an insurance renewal form for
her policy every six months. On March 4, 2002, plaintiff maintained such insurance with
defendant under policy number 0 22 519878. While the policy was in effect, defendant made
four offers to increase plaintiff’s UIM limits to equal plaintiff’s bodily injury limits. Defendant
made such offers in September 1983, March 1990, September 1990, and March 1991. Plaintiff
rejected defendant’s offers of increased UIM coverage.
On March 4, 2002, plaintiff contacted defendant, through her Allstate agent, and advised
defendant that she wished to cancel her insurance policy. On March 6, 2002, plaintiff contacted
defendant and advised defendant that she wished to be insured by defendant again. On March 6,
2002, defendant issued plaintiff insurance under policy number 9 02 399393. Pursuant to the
terms of plaintiff’s insurance policy, plaintiff had a bodily injury liability limit of $250,000 per
person and UIM limits of $20,000 per person. When plaintiff received policy number 9 02
399393, plaintiff was not required to complete a new application and plaintiff received the same
-2-
1-07-2937
premiums as her cancelled policy based on the fact that she was a longtime Allstate policyholder.
Plaintiff’s policy under number 9 02 399393 also contained the same coverage limits, vehicles,
and rating as the cancelled policy. Plaintiff’s policy under number 9 02 399393 continued
through to the six-month expiration date of the cancelled renewal policy (i.e. April 18, 2002), and
did not commence a new six-month period. Plaintiff was not provided any forms or documents
by defendant to allow her to increase her UIM limits or documents to waive her right to increase
her UIM limits.
Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident on April 15, 2003. As a result of her
injuries, plaintiff incurred $13,527.85 in medical bills. Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit
against Felicia Foster. On December 19, 2005, plaintiff settled the underlying lawsuit against
Foster for her policy limit of $20,000. Following the settlement, plaintiff submitted a UIM claim
under her insurance policy with defendant. Defendant denied UIM benefit coverage under
plaintiff’s insurance policy. Defendant maintained that plaintiff only had UIM coverage with
limits of $20,000, and plaintiff was not entitled to any recovery because defendant claimed a
right to a setoff in the amount of the underlying settlement of $20,000. Defendant’s denial of
additional UIM coverage was premised on defendant’s position that policy number 9 02 399393
was in fact the reinstatement of a prior policy that just happened to have a different policy
number.
On May 10, 2006, plaintiff filed the present declaratory judgment action against
defendant, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to UIM coverage in the same amount as her
bodily injury liability limits of $250,000, where defendant failed to offer increased UIM coverage
-3-
1-07-2937
when plaintiff received policy number 9 02 399393. Both parties filed motions for summary
judgment. Following arguments on the parties’ motions, the circuit court found that this case
involved the reinstatement of an existing policy rather than a new policy, and that defendant,
therefore, did not have an obligation to contact plaintiff about rejecting additional UIM coverage
in the same amount as plaintiff’s bodily injury limits. On September 12, 2007, the circuit court
entered an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for
clarification because the circuit court’s order did not make any reference to plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment. On October 18, 2007, the circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion for
clarification, specifically finding that defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted and
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in granting defendant’s motion
for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues
that her insurance policy, under number 9 02 399393, constituted a new policy rather than a
reinstatement. Plaintiff maintains that because defendant never offered her increased UIM
coverage under the new policy, as required by section 143a-2 of the Code, plaintiff is entitled to
have her policy reformed so that her UIM coverage was in the same amount as her bodily injury
liability limits of $250,000. Defendant contends that policy number 9 02 399393 was a renewal
policy, which did not require a new UIM coverage offer under section 143a-2 of the Code.
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits demonstrate
that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2006); American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v.
-4-
1-07-2937
Jeris, 376 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1073 (2007). "Construction of the terms of an insurance policy and
satisfaction of statutory requirements are questions of law properly decided on a motion for
summary judgment." Librizzi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 236 Ill. App. 3d 582, 587
(1992). We review de novo an order granting summary judgment. American Family Mutual
Insurance Co., 376 Ill. App. 3d at 1073.
In Illinois, UIM coverage is governed principally by section 143a-2 of the Code, which
provides, in relevant part:
“(1) Additional uninsured motor vehicle coverage. No policy insuring against
loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any
person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be
renewed or delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle
designed for use on public highways and required to be registered in this State unless
uninsured motorist coverage as required in Section 143a of this Code is included in an
amount equal to the insured’s bodily injury liability limits unless specifically rejected by
the insured. Each insurance company providing the coverage must provide applicants
with a brief description of the coverage and advise them of their right to reject the
coverage in excess of the limits set forth in Section 7-203 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
The provisions of this amendatory Act of 1990 apply to policies of insurance applied for
after June 30, 1991.
(2) Right of rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage. After June 30,
1991, every application for motor vehicle coverage must contain a space for indicating
-5-
1-07-2937
the rejection of additional uninsured motorist coverage. No rejection of that coverage
may be effective unless the applicant signs or initials the indication of rejection. The
applicant may reject additional uninsured motorist coverage in excess of the limits set
forth in Section 7-203 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. In those cases, including policies first
issued before July 1, 1991, where the insured has elected to purchase limits of uninsured
motorist coverage which are less than bodily injury liability limits or to reject limits in
excess of those required by law, the insurer need not provide in any renewal,
reinstatement, reissuance, substitute, amended, replacement or supplementary policy,
coverage in excess of that elected by the insured in connection with a policy previously
issued to such insured by the same insurer unless the insured subsequently makes a
written request for such coverage.” 215 ILCS 5/143a-2 (West 1994).1
In this case, there is no dispute that plaintiff had been insured by defendant since 1980,
and defendant offered plaintiff increased UIM limits on four occasions, in September 1983,
March 1990, September 1990, and March 1991, as required by section 143a-2(1). There is also
no dispute that plaintiff rejected all four offers. Therefore, from the plain reading of the statute,
if plaintiff’s policy under number 9 02 399393 constituted a renewal or reinstatement policy,
there was no need for defendant to send a new offer of UIM coverage to plaintiff. On the other
hand, if plaintiff’s policy under number 9 02 399393 was not a renewal or reinstatement, as those
terms are used in the statute, then defendant’s failure to send a new offer of UIM coverage in
1
While section 143a-2 was subsequently amended, the parties agree that the amended
statute does not apply in this case.
-6-
1-07-2937
2002 was violative of the statutory requirement of sections 143a-2. Such a violation would
require that UIM coverage at the limit of bodily injury liability coverage, which would be
$250,000 in this case, is read into the policy by operation of law. Makela v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., 147 Ill. App. 3d 38, 42-43 (1986).
Plaintiff argues that because she received a different policy number and there was a one-
day lapse in insurance coverage, policy number 9 02 399393 created a new policy, which
required defendant to reoffer increased UIM coverage.
This court’s decision in Makela is instructive on the question of when policy changes
create a new policy. In Makela, this court noted that a majority of jurisdictions which have dealt
with the question do not find a new policy created when a party replaces a vehicle covered under
an existing policy with a new vehicle. See Makela, 147 Ill. App. 3d at 42-46, citing Metropolitan
Property & Liability Insurance Co. v. Gray, 446 So. 2d 216 (Fla. App. 1984), El-Habr v.
Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co., 626 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. App. 1981), Myers v. Thibeaux,
365 So. 2d 266 (La. App. 1978), and Hicks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 568
P.2d 629 (Okla. 1977). In Makela, this court held that, under the Illinois UIM statute, the
addition of a new car to an existing policy is no more than a renewal of, or an action
supplementary to, the original policy. Makela, 147 Ill. App. 3d at 49-50. This court found that in
other jurisdictions with similar statutes, such as Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and
possibly Tennessee and Minnesota, no new UIM offer is required when changes are made to an
existing policy for which an adequate offer of UIM coverage had earlier been made. Makela, 147
Ill. App. 3d at 45-46. In Makela, this court cited Kerr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
-7-
1-07-2937
Insurance Co., 434 So. 2d 970 (Fla. App. 1983), for its discussion of the materiality standard for
changes in policies that in effect create new policies. In Kerr, the Florida court held that the
actions of the insurer in substituting a wife’s name for that of her deceased spouse as the named
insured on an existing automobile policy providing the same coverage levels on the same vehicle
did not amount to such a material variation in the policy as to require the insurer to reoffer UIM
coverage under the Florida statute. Kerr, 434 So. 2d at 972.
In this case, we find that the facts support a finding that plaintiff’s policy number 9 02
399393 was no more than a renewal or reinstatement of her original policy. A “renewal” is
“[t]he substitution of a new right or obligation for another of the same nature” (Black’s Law
Dictionary 1165 (5th ed. 1979)), and a “reinstatement” is “a restoration of the insured’s rights
under a policy which has lapsed or been cancelled” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1157 (5th ed.
1979)). Burnett v. Safeco Insurance Co., 227 Ill. App. 3d 167, 173 (1992). When plaintiff
contacted defendant a day after she cancelled her original policy, plaintiff received the benefit of
the same premiums as the original policy, based on the fact that she was a longtime Allstate
policyholder. In addition, policy number 9 02 399393 continued through to the six-month
expiration date of plaintiff’s previous policy, rather than commencing a new six-month period.
Further, plaintiff was not required to complete an application for a new insurance policy, and
policy number 9 02 399393 contained the same coverage limits, vehicles, and rating as the
cancelled policy. The only difference in the policies was the change in policy number. We
therefore conclude that policy number 9 02 399393 constituted a replacement or reinstatement of
the original policy with the same terms, rather than a new policy.
-8-
1-07-2937
We note that cases from other jurisdictions support our conclusion that a change in policy
number is insufficient to create a new policy. See Berry v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Co., 782 S.W.2d 246, 249 (Tex. App. 1989) (insureds’ rejection of uninsured motorist coverage
under initial policy applied to renewal policies, which had different policy numbers than the
initial policy); Johnson v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington, 117 Wash. 2d 558, 574, 817
P.2d 841, 849 (1991) (change in policy number, and name of insured and address did not create a
new policy for purposes of requiring a new UIM offer of coverage); McCurtis v. Free; 673 So. 2d
701, 703 (La. App. 1996) (assignment of a new number to the policy, in which all else remains
the same, does not result in the issuance of a new policy).
In addition, we find that the one-day lapse in insurance coverage was not sufficient to
create a new policy in this case. In McCurtis, 673 So. 2d at 703, the Louisiana Court of Appeals
found that a two-day lapse in insurance coverage did not require a new offer of increased UIM
coverage, where the coverage afforded the insured after the lapse was identical to the coverage
offered the insured before the lapse in insurance occurred. The court noted that the only
difference in the two policies was the policy number. Also, in Hoskins v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., Ohio St. 3d 87, 88-89, 497 N.E.2d 87, 87-88 (1986), the Supreme
Court of Ohio determined that a lapse of insurance coverage of one month and one day did not
create a new policy for purposes of reoffering UIM coverage upon reinstating the insured’s
policy. The court noted that, while the insured’s coverage was reinstated under a different
number, the insured was not required to submit a new application for coverage and the insured
received coverage with the same limits. Similarly, in this case, despite the one-day lapse in
-9-
1-07-2937
insurance coverage, plaintiff was not required to submit a new application and the coverage
afforded to plaintiff was identical to the coverage she enjoyed prior to the lapse occurring.
Plaintiff, nonetheless, relies on this court’s determination in Nila v. Hartford Insurance
Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 811. 820 (2000), in support of her claim that the one-day lapse in coverage
and new policy number required defendant to reoffer increased UIM coverage. In Nila, this court
found that a wife who survived her husband was not bound by his rejection of higher uninsured
motorist coverage. In reaching that decision, this court noted that the wife had been substituted
on the policy as the sole insured and became solely responsible for the policy decisions, the
insured vehicle had been changed, and the term at issue was beyond the husband’s last policy
renewal. Nila, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 820. Unlike the wife in Nila, plaintiff was not substituted as a
named insured, a new vehicle was not added, and the term of coverage continued to the end of
the six-month period of the previous policy renewal. Here, plaintiff was the sole insured on the
policy both before and after the lapse in coverage, and plaintiff continued to enjoy the same
coverage as she did prior to the one-day lapse in coverage. The Code does not require that a
rejection of the higher UIM limits be submitted each time a policy is renewed. Isaacson v.
Country Mutual Insurance Co., 328 Ill. App. 3d 982, 987 (2002). Therefore, we find that the
renewal or reinstatement of plaintiff’s policy did not require a new offer of UIM coverage from
defendant. Since no violation occurred under section 143a-2 of the Code, plaintiff was not
entitled to have her insurance policy reformed to provide UIM benefits in the same amount as her
bodily injury liability limits of $250,000.
-10-
1-07-2937
For the above reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court granting defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.
GREIMAN and CUNNINGHAM, JJ., concur.
-11-