Insurance Policy’s Unambiguous Definition of “Insured” Interpreted Under Plain and Ordinary Meaning of Policy Terms
In Hacker v. Shelter Ins., Hacker rented an apartment from Burk. Hacker’s mother fell on a stairway at the apartment building and suffered injuries as a result of Hacker’s negligence. Shelter Insurance furnished Burk with an Apartment Owners/Rental Dwelling Insurance Policy, naming Burk as the only policyholder. Burk’s mother sued Burk and Burk filed a third-party complaint against Hacker. Hacker maintained she was a co-insured under Burk’s policy and tendered her defense to Shelter Insurance. Shelter Insurance declined to defend Hacker.
The policy defined the term “insured” as the person named on the policy’s declarations page, and also covered the insured’s spouse, any person acting as a real estate manager for the insured, and an employee of the insured acting within the scope of his duties. Hacker maintained that she was an additional insured under Burk’s policy. Shelter Insurance denied that Hacker was an insured under the liability policy since she was not a named insured and did not otherwise qualify as an insured as that term was defined in the policy.
The court found that the policy did not include Burk’s tenants within the definition of “insured.” Accordingly, the court in Hacker v. Shelter Ins. held that there was no ambiguity with respect to Hacker’s coverage under the policy and that she was not an insured under the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms of the policy.
Hacker v. Shelter Ins. Co., 388 Ill.App.3d 386, 902 N.E.2d 188 (Ill.App. 5 Dist., 2009).
