Exclusion Barring Coverage
In Hastings Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carpentier, Ross Conrady, Katherine Carpentier, Christopher McGlasson, and Katelyn McCarty died as a result of injuries sustained when a Ford F-150 truck driven by Ross Conrady crashed. The truck was owned by Tri Pork Inc, a livestock operation controlled by the Conradys. Hastings Mutual Insurance (“Hastings”), the Conradys’ insurance company, filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment.
The court reviewed two issues: (1) whether Conradys’ farmowners umbrella policy provided coverage for the accident as to Tri Pork based on the underlying insurance provision of the policy and (2) whether Conradys’ personal automobile policy (“749 policy”) provided additional coverage. At the time of the accident, Tri Pork Inc. was insured through a farmowners policy and a farm umbrella policy. Tri Pork was also identified as an additional insured in the personal auto policy (“756 policy”) issued to Conrady. At issue is whether there was an existing underlying insurance for Tri Pork in order for it to be covered under the farm umbrella policy. Hastings argued that the underlying insurance identified in Schedule A of the farm umbrella’s declarations is Tri Pork farmowners policy, a policy which did not provide auto coverage. Hastings’ argument, therefore, is that since the underlying insurance did not provide coverage for the subject accident, neither did the farm umbrella policy. The Conradys argue that the underlying insurance, as described in the umbrella’s declarations, is in fact the ‘756’ policy. Since the ‘756’ was in effect at the time of the accident, the umbrella policy’s underlying insurance requirement is satisfied.
Considering the umbrella policy as a whole and focusing on all of the provisions, rather than an isolated part, an ambiguity existed because: (1) no account number is listed identifying the underlying policy or policies and (2) both of Tri Pork’s policies include “comprehensive coverage” for the farm operation with $500,000 limits. Despite the ambiguity, Schedule A provides insight into which policy underlies the umbrella policy. Subsection “B” of Schedule A describes the underlying policy as being subject to the limits specified in Schedule A ($500,000) and “INSURES ALL LAND MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED OR HIRED BY THE INSURED AT INCEPTION OF THE CURRENT POLICY PERIOD.” The court must construe ambiguous policy provisions limiting an insurer’s liability “liberally in favor of coverage.” The court found that the “Farmers Comprehensive Liability” policy listed in Schedule A refers to Tri Pork’s automobile policy ending in “756.” Had the court concluded, as Hastings claims, that the parties intended the underlying policy to be the general farmowners policy which did not include automobile coverage, the court would not be “assum[ing] that every provision was intended to serve a purpose.”
In regard to the issue of whether Conradys’ personal automobile policy (“749 policy”) provided additional coverage, the 749 policy insured Conradys as to their 2005 Lincoln Aviator and 2006 Pontiac G6, the court interpreted the “749” policy to mean that it covered Ross Conrady for liability resulting from accidents involving the Lincoln and Pontiac. The exclusion in the policy stated that the Hastings did not provide Liability Coverage for the ownership, maintenance or use of any vehicle, other than [Lincoln and Pontiac], which was: (a) owned by any ‘family member’ or (b) furnished or available for the regular use of any family member. However, there was an exception to this exclusion. The exception did not apply to David and Lisa Conrady while they were maintaining or occupying any vehicle which was: (a) owned by any ‘family member’ or (b) furnished or available for the regular use of any family member. The exception to the general exclusion to all vehicles, except the Lincoln and Pontiac, would have been applied to David and Lisa if they had occupied the Ford F-150 truck because they were “named insured.” However, it did not apply to Ross because he was not a “named insured.” The court found that the policy contained an exclusion applied to the accident and barred coverage under the policy to the Estate of Ross Conrady.
Hastings Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carpentier, 2013 IL App (4th) 120281.
(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).)
