{
  "id": 3625530,
  "name": "LINDA LEE GORENZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gorenz v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1983-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 82-654",
  "first_page": "586",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 Ill. App. 3d 586"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "524 F.2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1100622
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/524/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N.W. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Mich. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1695726
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/224/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 Ill. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2570025
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "238"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/368/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 Ill. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2469233
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "187"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/395/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "411 Ill. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5312870
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/411/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. 2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2957997
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "170-71"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/59/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3074014
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/78/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 Ill. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2497201
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "383"
        },
        {
          "page": "383"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/387/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2991510
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "370-71"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/75/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3046540
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "371"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/84/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ill. 2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2716021
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "482"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/8/0476-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4056,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.10409873316938555
    },
    "sha256": "55c84cdfe3a42ad387e97af16edfd58c906ff4db8b567267289defde6142306f",
    "simhash": "1:41eee8aa07b0bf46",
    "word_count": 662
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:35.449940+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LINDA LEE GORENZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff filed an action to recover an accidental death benefit provided under a life insurance policy which her husband had with defendant. The controlling question under the pertinent policy provision is whether, at the time of his accidental death, \u201cthe insured was a passenger in or upon a public conveyance operated by a common carrier for passenger service.\u201d The trial court entered summary judgment on behalf of the insurer, and plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court misconstrued this policy provision.\nWe affirm. The following undisputed facts are material to our decision.\nRichard Gorenz was struck and killed by a westbound Burlington Northern Railroad train on January 26, 1978, at the railroad\u2019s Lisle, Illinois, station, as he walked across the carrier\u2019s tracks while on his way to board an eastbound Burlington Northern train. It is undisputed that Richard\u2019s death was accidental, and his life insurance policy provided for a $10,000 accidental death benefit if \u201cthe accident injury was sustained while the insured was a passenger in or upon public conveyance operated by a common carrier for passenger service.\u201d\nOn cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court held that even if Richard was considered a passenger of the railroad at the time of his death, he was not \u201ca passenger in or upon a public conveyance.\u201d\nWe agree.\n\u201cIt is fundamental that where the terms of an insurance policy are clear and unambiguous the court must give effect to the intent of the parties to the contract in accordance with the clear expression of agreement.\u201d (McCann v. Continental Casualty Co. (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 476, 482. Accord, Thornton v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co. (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 365, 371; Kirk v. Financial Security Life Insurance Co. (1978), 75 Ill. 2d 367, 370-71.) \u201cAgain, contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous their terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense.\u201d Moscov v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1944), 387 Ill. 378, 383. Accord, Dora Township v. Indiana Insurance Co. (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 376, 378; Weiss v. Bituminous Casualty Corp. (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 165, 170-71; Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America (1952), 411 Ill. 325, 332.\n\u201cThe parties to an insurance contract may incorporate in it such provisions, not in violation of law, as they, choose; and it is the duty of the courts to construe and enforce the contract as made. Manifestly, courts have neither the right nor the power to make a new contract for the parties.\u201d Moscov v. Mutual Insurance Co. (1944), 387 Ill. 378, 383. Accord, Zitnik v. Burik (1946), 395 Ill. 182, 187; Coons v. Home Life Insurance Co. (1938), 368 Ill. 231, 238.\nGiving effect to the plain, ordinary, and unambiguous language of the disputed policy provision, Richard Gorenz was not \u201cin or upon a public conveyance\u201d when he was run over by a train. To hold otherwise would require us to rewrite the policy and disregard the unambiguous provision that the disputed death benefit would not apply unless the insured was \u201cin or upon a public conveyance\u201d when he was injured. (See, e.g., Quinn v. New York Life Insurance Co. (1923), 224 Mich. 641, 195 N.W. 427; Ludwig v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. (7th Cir. 1975), 524 F.2d 376 (applying Michigan law).) We lack authority to disregard this unambiguous policy provision, and the judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSULLIVAN and MEJDA, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack Ring, Ltd., of Chicago (Jack Ring and Richard L. Wattling, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Peterson, Ross, Schloerb & Seidel, of Chicago (J. Robert Geiman and David R. Schmidt, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LINDA LEE GORENZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 82\u2014654\nOpinion filed March 31, 1983.\nJack Ring, Ltd., of Chicago (Jack Ring and Richard L. Wattling, of counsel), for appellant.\nPeterson, Ross, Schloerb & Seidel, of Chicago (J. Robert Geiman and David R. Schmidt, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0586-01",
  "first_page_order": 608,
  "last_page_order": 610
}