{
  "id": 3601026,
  "name": "KRISTINE SIMIONI, a Minor, by her Mother and Next Friend, Charlene Simioni Cagney, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, Indiv. and d/b/a National Ban Franklin Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simioni v. Continental Insurance Companies",
  "decision_date": "1985-08-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 84\u20141890",
  "first_page": "916",
  "last_page": "919",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "135 Ill. App. 3d 916"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "308 N.E.2d 702",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 N.E.2d 702",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 3d 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3393808
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278-79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/53/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "401 N.E.2d 539",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3075623
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "423"
        },
        {
          "page": "423"
        },
        {
          "page": "426"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/78/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 324,
    "char_count": 6145,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.747,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.923242026018406e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5361482464807794
    },
    "sha256": "d6b11086ea87f9bacf4e0d4b646f5753412f85e4f63d4ed20e91d08661319825",
    "simhash": "1:02469a5e961f65c5",
    "word_count": 938
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:44:15.524885+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KRISTINE SIMIONI, a Minor, by her Mother and Next Friend, Charlene Simioni Cagney, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, Indiv. and d/b/a National Ban Franklin Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MEJDA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Kristine Simioni (plaintiff), appeals from the summary-judgment entered in favor of defendant, Continental Insurance Companies, individually and doing business as National Ben Franklin Insurance Company (National Ben). In August of 1980, plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident involving Martin Garofalo (Martin). At the time of the accident, Martin was driving his own car, insured under his name with National Ben under a policy issued to him as the named insured. Martin\u2019s father, Dominick P. Garofalo (Dominick), concurrently carried insurance for his own car with National Ben under a separate policy issued to Dominick as the named insured. Martin\u2019s car was not listed as an insured vehicle under Dominick\u2019s policy.\nFollowing the August 1980 accident, plaintiff brought suit against Martin for injuries received in the accident. In 1983, plaintiff initiated the present action against National Ben for declaratory judgment that Dominick\u2019s policy with National Ben affords plaintiff additional coverage for Martin\u2019s liabilities. Plaintiff asserted that Martin, as a member of Dominick\u2019s household, was an insured party under Dominick\u2019s policy, and that Martin\u2019s car was insured under the \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d clause of the same policy. National Ben subsequently moved for summary judgment, alleging that Martin was not insured under Dominick\u2019s policy at the time of the accident since he was driving a car which was neither his father Dominick\u2019s nor a \u201cnon-owned\u201d vehicle under the terms of Dominick\u2019s policy. The court granted National Ben\u2019s motion, and plaintiff moved for a rehearing. Following the rehearing, summary judgment was again granted in favor of National Ben. This appeal followed.\nOpinion\nThe central issue before us is whether the policy insuring Dominick\u2019s car provided coverage for the car owned and operated by his son Martin at the time of the accident. Dominick\u2019s policy provides coverage for bodily injuries and property damage which become the legal obligation of insured persons. Persons insured under the policy are defined as follows:\n\u201c(a) with respect to the owned automobile, (1) the named insured and any resident of the same household, ***.\u201d\n\u201c(b) with respect to a non-owned automobile, (1) the named insured, (2) any relative, ***.\u201d\nAs stated, the policy covers Dominick or any person residing in the same household while driving the \u201cowned automobile,\u201d Dominick\u2019s car. Since Martin resided in Dominick\u2019s house at the time of the accident, he would have been covered under Dominick\u2019s policy had he been driving Dominick\u2019s car at the time.\nThe policy further states that coverage is provided for Dominick or \u201cany relative\u201d when driving a \u201cnon-owned automobile.\u201d The relationship between Dominick and Martin is undisputed. Thus, the question before us is whether Martin\u2019s car qualifies as a \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d under Dominick\u2019s policy.\nDominick\u2019s policy defines a \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d as \u201can automobile or trailer not owned by or furnished for regular use of either the named insured or any relative, other than a temporary substitute automobile.\u201d The car driven by Martin at the time of the accident was both owned by him and insured in his name. Thus, Martin\u2019s car is clearly outside the scope of the \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d provision in Dominick\u2019s policy. Further, since Martin was driving neither his father Dominick\u2019s car nor a \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d at the time of the accident, Dominick\u2019s policy provides no coverage for his liability.\nPlaintiff nonetheless contends that the \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d provision is ambiguous, and, consequently, should be construed to provide coverage for Martin in this situation. All ambiguities in an insurance policy should be resolved in favor of the insured. (Menke v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 420, 423, 401 N.E.2d 539.) Here, however, the policy language is unambiguous, thus precluding any need for construction of the policy (78 Ill. 2d 420, 423, 401 N.E.2d 539). Moreover, this court considered an identical provision in Old Mutual Casualty Co. v. Clark (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 274, 368 N.E.2d 702. There, coverage for a live-in son owning and operating his own vehicle was claimed under the \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d provision of his parents\u2019 policy. We there held that the \u201cnon-owned\u201d provision was not ambiguous and that the provision in the parents\u2019 policy did not provide coverage for the son when operating his own automobile. (53 Ill. App. 3d 274, 278-79, 308 N.E.2d 702.) In sum, we similarly conclude that the \u201cnon-owned automobile\u201d provision of Dominick\u2019s policy is not ambiguous and that Dominick\u2019s policy does not provide coverage for the accident involving Martin\u2019s own automobile.\nPlaintiff\u2019s final contention is that, despite the language of Dominick\u2019s policy, we should nevertheless construe the policy to provide coverage for plaintiff\u2019s injuries. Plaintiff here maintains that public policy dictates the compensation for the injuries of innocent parties. Public policy, however, does not require the invalidation of clearly written policy provisions simply to satisfy a party seeking compensation. (Menke v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 420, 426, 401 N.E.2d 539.) Given the clarity of the provisions before us, we find plaintiff\u2019s policy contention to be without merit.\nFor all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nSULLIVAN and LORENZ, JJ., concur.\nIn its brief, appellee submits that its proper title herein is solely \u201cNational Ben Franklin Insurance Company.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MEJDA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heller & Morris & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Anthony J. Basile, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, P.C., of Chicago (James T. Ferrini and Margaret J. Orbon, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KRISTINE SIMIONI, a Minor, by her Mother and Next Friend, Charlene Simioni Cagney, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, Indiv. and d/b/a National Ban Franklin Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 84\u20141890\nOpinion filed August 16, 1985.\nHeller & Morris & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Anthony J. Basile, of counsel), for appellant.\nClausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, P.C., of Chicago (James T. Ferrini and Margaret J. Orbon, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0916-01",
  "first_page_order": 938,
  "last_page_order": 941
}