Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

02/03/88 State Farm Mutual v. Thomas L. Bundy Et Al.

February 3, 1988

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

v.

THOMAS L. BUNDY ET AL., DEFENDANTS (UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS)



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT

519 N.E.2d 109, 165 Ill. App. 3d 260, 116 Ill. Dec. 519 1988.IL.132

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. Luther H. Dearborn, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the court. McCULLOUGH and LUND, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE GREEN

On October 21, 1985, plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) filed this action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of McLean County. It sought an interpretation of the coverage provided by a policy of automobile insurance issued to defendant Thomas L. Bundy. On April 8, 1987, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to count I of the complaint. The court found (1) a pickup truck, owned by defendant Puregro Company, d/b/a Marco Farm Supply (Puregro), which was being driven by defendant Bundy at the time of an automobile collision, was excluded from coverage under the policy because of a limitation in the policy for non-owned cars provided for the insured's "regular or frequent use," and (2) plaintiff had no duty to defend or to indemnify Bundy for any loss resulting from the incident. The court found no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal. 107 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).

Defendants Union Oil Company (Union), Puregro, and Continental Insurance Company (Continental) appeal contending that although no dispute existed as to the underlying circumstances in regard to defendant Bundy's use of the vehicle he was operating at the time of the collision, a question of fact exists as to whether those circumstances meet the requirements of the non-owned car provision of the policy. Those defendants request that we overrule this court's previous decision in Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gorman (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 1127, 406 N.E.2d 169, where we held a similar exclusionary provision of an automobile liability policy applied as a matter of law under substantially the same circumstances. However, we adhere to that precedent and affirm.

The liability coverage of the car policy is defined within "SECTION I -- LIABILITY -- COVERAGE A," which provides, in part:

" Coverage for the Use of Other Cars

The liability coverage extends to the use, by an insured, of a newly acquired car, a temporary substitute car or a non-owned car." (Emphasis in original.)

Within the "DEFINED WORDS" section of the car policy, the agreement provides:

" Non-Owned Car -- means a car not

1. owned by,

2. registered in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.