In a declaratory judgment action seeking excess uninsured motorist coverage under an endorsement in plaintiffs’ umbrella policy for the injuries they suffered in an accident with an uninsured motorist, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiffs’ insurer, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ contention that the endorsement was ambiguous, since the umbrella policy expressly provided coverage for “Personal Liability” and unambiguously excluded excess coverage for the insureds’ first-party injuries, and the exclusion of excess uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to an umbrella policy is consistent with Illinois law.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Whiteside County, No. 11-L-26; the Hon. John L. Hauptman, Judge, presiding.
Michael J. Warner, of Warner & Zimmerle, of Rock Island, for appellants.
J. Scott Gillman and Guy M. Conti, both of Condon & Cook, LLC, of Chicago, for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McDade and Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 The plaintiffs, David and Brenda Huizenga, appeal from the trial court's ruling in favor of the defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance (Auto-Owners), and against the plaintiffs (the insureds) on their respective motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the insureds contend that the trial court erred in finding that an endorsement in their umbrella policy with Auto-Owners did not provide excess uninsured motorist coverage for their personal injuries. We affirm the order of the trial court.
¶ 2 FACTS
¶ 3 On April 6, 2010, the insureds incurred injuries in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver. Their injuries exceeded $500, 000 in damages.
¶ 4 At the time of the accident, the insureds owned an underlying automobile insurance policy with coverage for: (1) bodily injury ($500, 000 per person and per occurrence); (2) property damage ($100, 000 per occurrence); (3) uninsured and underinsured motorist ($500, 000 per person and per occurrence); and (4) medical payments ($5, 000 per person).
¶ 5 In addition, at the time of the accident the insureds owned an "Executive Umbrella Insurance Policy" that provided $1 million in excess coverage for the insureds for "Personal Liability." Personal liability under the policy was described as "the ultimate net loss in excess of the retained limit which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury or property damage."
¶ 6 The umbrella policy also included an endorsement with the ...