Illinois Insurance Attorney

In Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance v. Wolf, the defendant, Wolf, drove a truck with an attached hay rack that came into contact with the decedent’s motorcycle, injuring and killing him. The personal representative of decedent’s estate brought suit against the defendant, both individually and as the agent of the employer of Homer Hay, alleging that the defendant negligently caused the death of the decedent due to the defendant’s negligent maintenance, operation, and marking of the hay rack. The insurer, Grinnell Mutual, issued a Commercial Lines Policy to Wolf, d/b/a Homer Hay, providing general commercial liability insurance.

The policy exclusions provided that the insurance did not apply to “bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, auto or watercraft…” even if the claims against any insured alleged negligence.  The policy defined an “auto” as “a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment.”

Grinnell denied that the policy provided coverage for the occurrence.  The personal representative of the decedent’s estate contended that the allegations fell outside the scope of the policy’s auto exclusion.

The court in Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance v. Wolf held that the policy’s definition of “auto” was not ambiguous, but rather plainly included Wolf’s hay rack as part of his “auto.”  The court found that the allegations regarding the maintenance or use of the hay rack were merely rephrased allegations regarding the maintenance or use of the truck. Because the decedent’s death was the result of an auto accident that undoubtedly arose out of the use of Wolf’s truck, the injury was not within, or potentially within, the coverage provided by the policy.

Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Wolf, 2010 WL 3024878 (N.D.Ill., 2010).

Categories: Business and Commercial, Insurance
Tags: