BROADCASTS.com

b'

\\nAnti-Stacking Provision Clear & Unambiguous\\n\\nPlaintiffs, Mark and Karen Kuhn (the Kuhns) sued seeking a declaratory \\njudgment of the available liability insurance covering an accident \\nbetween a semitruck owned by Jason Farrell and a school bus driven by \\nMark.\\n\\nIn Mark Kuhn and Karen Kuhn v. Owners Insurance Company; et al, No. \\n4-22-0827, 2023 IL App (4th) 220827, Court of Appeals of Illinois, \\nFourth District (June 28, 2023) the semitruck was insured under a policy\\n issued by Owners Insurance Company (Owners), and that policy also \\ninsured six other vehicles-two other semitrucks and four trailers- that \\nwere not involved in the accident. Each vehicle had a limit of $1 \\nmillion per accident. The Kuhns sought a declaration that the coverage \\nlimits for all of the covered vehicles should be aggregated, or \\n"stacked," resulting in a total of available liability insurance of $7 \\nmillion for the accident.\\n\\nThe trial court entered a written judgment in favor of the Kuhns, \\nconcluding that (1) the policy was ambiguous; (2) because the ambiguity \\nshould be construed against Owners, stacking of the policy\'s coverage \\nlimits was permitted; and (3) the aggregate limit of insurance for \\nliability coverage under the policy was $7 million. Accordingly, the \\ncourt granted the Kuhns\' motion for summary judgment and entered \\njudgment against Owners. Owners appealed\\n\\nBACKGROUND\\n\\n"Stacking\\u201d ordinarily involves combining or aggregating the policy \\nlimits applicable to more than one vehicle where the other vehicles are \\nnot involved in the accident.\\n\\nThe Insurance Policy at Issue\\n\\nThe policy provided "Combined Liability" coverage on each of the seven \\nvehicles of up to "$1 Million each accident." The Kuhns argued that the \\nwording of the policy and accompanying declarations were ambiguous \\npursuant to Illinois case law because the coverages and premiums set \\nforth in the declarations were repeated for each insured vehicle.\\n\\nOwners argued that the policy declarations were consistent with each \\nother and not ambiguous. In particular, subsection 5 explicitly stated \\nthat the limits for the same or similar coverage applying to other \\nvehicles could not be added to determine the amount of coverage for an \\naccident.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nIn general, antistacking provisions in insurance policies are not \\ncontrary to public policy. In Illlinois, an unambiguous antistacking \\nclause will be given effect by a reviewing court.\\n\\nThe coverages varied based on the vehicle insured; for example, the \\npremiums for vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 (both semitrucks) were identical \\nfor liability, UIM/UM coverage, and medical payments, but only vehicle 1\\n had comprehensive and collision coverage.\\n\\nThe Antistacking Clause\\n\\nEven if some ambiguity existed, the policy\'s antistacking clause cleared\\n up any possible confusion.\\n\\nInstead of applying the Policy\'s clear anti-stacking provision, the \\ntrial court engaged in the very sort of tortured and strained reading of\\n the Policy to find an ambiguity that this Court and the Illinois \\nSupreme Court have repeatedly rejected. This was error, the trial \\ncourt\\u2019s order was reversed and the case remanded with directions to \\nenter summary judgment in favor of Owners.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nIt should be axiomatic that a trial court should never engage in \\ntortured or strained reading of a policy to find an ambiguity that did \\nnot exist. A clear and unambiguous policy wording that refuses to allow \\nstacking of coverages that apply to more than one vehicle insured when \\nonly one vehicle is involved in an accident, should be enforced as \\nwritten. The Illinois Court of Appeals read the entire policy and found \\nno ambiguity and insisted on enforcing the contract of insurance as \\nwritten.