Policy Limitation Clause Does not Violate Public Policy
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. LeBeau, LeBeau was driving an Oldsmobile Intrigue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, when she collided with an uninsured vehicle driven by Eris Brewer. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment against LeBeau. State Farm alleged that LeBeau could not recover uninsured motorist coverage under their policy. LeBeau demanded UM benefits under the policy. The policy’s limitation clause stated, “Under the uninsured motor vehicle coverages, any arbitration or suit against us will be barred unless commenced within two years after the date of the accident.”
At the time, Country Preferred Insurance Co. v. Whitehead, 2012 IL 113365 (Ill. 2012) was just decided by the Illinois Supreme Court. In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court held that uninsured motorist coverage, which required the bringing of a suit, action, or arbitration request within two years, did not violate public policy merely because it was applied to an insured that had an accident in Wisconsin where the limitation period is three years.
The court reviewed the same issue that the Illinois Supreme Court just ruled on: Whether bringing a suit, action or arbitration request within two years violated public policy because the accident occurred in Wisconsin where the limitation is three years.
The court followed the Illinois Supreme Court holding in Whitehead and stated that there was no violation of public policy just because Wisconsin has a longer limitation period.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. LeBeau, 2013 WL 1737861 (Ill.App. 2 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).)
