{
  "id": 3596540,
  "name": "RICHARD COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cook v. Country Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201483\u20140702",
  "first_page": "446",
  "last_page": "448",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 Ill. App. 3d 446"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "327 N.E.2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "323"
        },
        {
          "page": "323"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. 2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5415110
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "299"
        },
        {
          "page": "299"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/60/0295-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4098,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.164556231569935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3829989702102323
    },
    "sha256": "7072fef53ec5fa02adc9bcb44d31aa2702e2d5a753760e51bfce02d036ce168d",
    "simhash": "1:3bc06b9a3c743b5f",
    "word_count": 645
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:42.345915+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE SCOTT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRichard Cook and Larry Hardesty were both employees of Grover DeCounter. DeCounter owned an automobile that Cook and Hardesty were using in their employment. Cook was the driver, Hardesty the passenger. An accident occurred in which Hardesty was injured. He brought suit against his co-employee, Cook.\nDeCounter insured the automobile with Country Mutual. Country Mutual refused to defend the lawsuit by Hardesty against Cook. Cook settled the lawsuit with Hardesty. Cook now brings an action against Country Mutual for breach of its duty to defend.\nThe Country Mutual policy insured \u201canyone using an insured vehicle with [the named insured\u2019s] permission.\u201d However, the policy excludes from coverage \u201cbodily injuries sustained by any employee of an insured in the course of employment for that insured.\u201d Finally, the policy states that \u201cthe insurance coverage under Section 1 applies separately to each insured against whom a claim or lawsuit is filed.\u201d Country Mutual bases its refusal to defend on the employee status of the injured party Hardesty. The circuit court of McDo-nough County ruled in favor of Country Mutual, determining that no obligation to defend existed, and this appeal by Cook is taken from that ruling.\nCook relies on a 1975 decision of the supreme court, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 295, 327 N.E.2d 321, which states:\n\"*** severability clause provides each insured with separate coverage, as if each were separately insured with a distinct policy, subject to the liability limits of the policy. The employee exclusion, therefore, does not exclude protection for an additional insured against an injury suffered by an employee of another insured. The exclusionary clause applies only to the situation where an insured is sued by its own employee.\nA reasonable interpretation of the language of the severability clause, that \u2018the insurance afforded applies separately to each insured,\u2019 leads to the obvious conclusion that each insured is to be treated as if each were separately insured. The language shows that the insurer recognizes an obligation to additional insureds distinct from its obligations to the named insured.\u201d (60 Ill. 2d 295, 299, 327 N.E.2d 321, 323.)\nThe supreme court goes on to explain that this interpretation of the employee exclusion is consistent with the purposes and the policies underlying the workman\u2019s compensation law.\nThe opinion in United States Fidelity recognizes and distinguishes prior decisions which addressed the sole issue presented in this appeal. The instant case is controlled by the supreme court\u2019s reasoning and decision in United States Fidelity. Country Mutual attempts to distinguish the language in the policies of insurance involved in the United States Fidelity case and the instant case. Specifically, Country Mutual argues that in the instant case the exclusionary clause refers to \u201can\u201d insured rather than \u201cthe\u201d insured and then goes on to argue that \u201can\u201d means \u201cany.\u201d We are not impressed with this tenuous argument. To accept it would dictate that we accept any arbitrary definition of the word \u201can,\u201d but of more import, we are impressed with the supreme court\u2019s observation in United States Fidelity that \u201c[i]f liability for this latter type occurrence was to be excluded from the policy, it could have been clearly stated.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 60 Ill. 2d 295, 299, 327 N.E.2d 321, 323.\nFor the reasons set forth, the judgment of the circuit court of McDonough County which dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s complaint is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nSTOUDER and HEIPLE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE SCOTT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary D. Nelson, Daniel L. Schmidt, and Judith A. Schieber, all of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "James J. Elson and Walter D. Barra, both of Canton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201483\u20140702\nOpinion filed June 18, 1984.\nModified on denial of rehearing August 23, 1984.\nGary D. Nelson, Daniel L. Schmidt, and Judith A. Schieber, all of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellant.\nJames J. Elson and Walter D. Barra, both of Canton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0446-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 470
}