Insurer has Burden of Showing that Insurer’s Actions Fall within the Ambiguous Policy Exclusion
In American Access Casualty v. Rodriguez, the insured, Erika Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), was driving her vehicle from one meeting for her employer to another meeting for her employer when she struck a pedestrian, Nyesha Morris (“Morris”). Morris filed a personal injury lawsuit against Rodriguez, who was insured under an insurance policy issued by American Access Casualty Co. (“AACC”). AACC filed a declaratory judgment action against Morris and Rodriguez, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The policy issued to Rodriguez contained an exclusion which stated that: “Exclusions. This policy does not apply to and does not provide coverage under Part A-‘Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damages Liability’ Coverage for…b) any automobile while used in the delivery, or any activity associated with delivery, of food, mail, newspapers, magazines, or packages for an employer or business or in any trade or business.”
AACC argued that the exclusion provides for a delivery-use exception as well as a business-use exception because the fourth “or” signals a separation between an exclusion for deliveries and an exclusion for the use of a vehicle that is used in a trade or business. Morris argues that the clause only provides for a delivery-use exception because the fourth “or” merely indicates separate categories or business enterprises that may be engaged in delivery activities.
The court reviewed the interpretation of the exclusion clause and whether the exclusion is ambiguous.
Under this ruling, the policy exclusion was ambiguous. Under Illinois law, any ambiguities in insurance policy exclusions are to be construed strongly against the insurer and in favor of the insured. The insurer has the burden of showing that the insurer’s actions fall within the exclusion.
Am. Access Cas., Co. v. Rodriguez, 2014 IL App (1st) 131661.
NOTICE: This order was 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).
