Burden of Proof Falls on Insured
In Reagan v. State Farm Ins. Co., an automobile accident occurred whereby Warren Reagan’s decedent, Michael Reagan, was killed. At the time of the accident, Warren Reagan (“Reagan”) had an insurance policy with State Farm Insurance Company. The policy included benefits for damages due to the negligence of underinsured drivers. Reagan sought benefits pursuant to this policy, claiming that the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, Lloyd Searcy, was underinsured and that Searcy’s negligence proximately caused the accident. The policy provided that in order to obtain payment pursuant to the underinsured provision, the insured and the insurer must come to an agreement with regard to whether the insured was “legally entitled to collect damages from the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured motor vehicle” and “[i]f so, in what amount?” If the parties could not come to an agreement on these two questions, the policy provided that arbitration would follow, and that “[s]tate court rules governing procedure and admission of evidence” would be used in arbitration. Arbitration proceeded and the arbitrators came to an award which was entered.
The court reviewed whether an action to determine if there is insurance coverage is a burden on the insured to prove. In Illinois, an action to determine if there is insurance coverage is a burden on the insured. The insured needs to prove that its claim falls within the coverage of an insurance policy. Consequently, Reagan, as the insured under its policy with State Farm, had the burden to show that he was entitled to collect payment under the policy. To do that, Reagan had to prove, pursuant to the language of the policy, that he was “legally entitled to collect damages from the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured motor vehicle.” The arbitrators, in their final award, stated that Reagan “failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue of liability in this case,” and that the deceased was more than 50% at fault for the cause of the accident. There was no improper shifting of the burden of proof to the plaintiff. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that if it appears on the face of an arbitration award that the arbitrators were “so mistaken as to the law that, if apprised of the mistake, the award would be different,” a reviewing court may vacate an arbitration award on the grounds of gross mistake of fact or law. The plaintiff was mistaken that such a mistake of law was present on the face of the arbitration award in the present case.
Reagan v. State Farm Ins. Co. 2013 IL App (5th) 110251-U, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2013 WL 164014 Ill.App. 5 Dist.,2013. (Filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).)
