{
  "id": 3467934,
  "name": "DARRELL CREAMER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Creamer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201487\u20140062",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "225",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 Ill. App. 3d 223"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "402 N.W.2d 758",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10661384
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/402/0758-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.E.2d 73",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 2d 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5280669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/52/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 N.E.2d 1032",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. App. 3d 1092",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3119404
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/95/1092-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 4173,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.77,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.8015522425181884e-07,
      "percentile": 0.897456569861795
    },
    "sha256": "d0086a6b47f3493d1644a0917131fce971e2291de644a46fb8c63c6e422b2587",
    "simhash": "1:87624924ffefd9c2",
    "word_count": 648
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:58.396413+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DARRELL CREAMER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPrior to October 26, 1985, the defendant, the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, issued an automobile insurance policy to the plaintiffs, Darrell and Georgia Creamer. On October 26, 1985, the plaintiffs\u2019 minor daughter was struck and injured by an uninsured motorist\u2019s vehicle. The plaintiffs demanded payment from the defendant for the minor\u2019s bodily injury, their loss of consortium and incurred medical expenses.\nThe defendant tendered the $25,000 uninsured motor vehicle policy limits for the minor\u2019s bodily injury but denied the plaintiffs\u2019 claim for additional recovery. The plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant declaratory judgment action against the defendant. In allowing the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint, the trial court found the plaintiffs\u2019 recovery for the minor\u2019s bodily injury limited to the amount specified per accident for bodily injury sustained by one person. From that judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.\nThe plaintiffs argue that they, as parents of the minor insured, are entitled to separate recovery under the policy for loss of consortium and the minor\u2019s medical expenses. The plaintiffs suggest that the policy vaguely defines \u201cbodily injury\u201d as a personal injury and, thus, that phrase encompasses their claims. The defendant denies that the policy provided the plaintiffs either additional or stacked uninsured motorist coverage for the minor child\u2019s bodily injury. We agree.\nThe insurance policy provides under \u201cdamages for bodily injury\u201d that \u201can insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle.\u201d Each insured is covered \u201cfor all damages due to bodily injury to one person.\u201d Liability limits are not increased because more than one person is insured when an accident occurs and shall not exceed the uninsured motor vehicle \u201ccoverage with the highest limit of liability.\u201d The policy also defines bodily injury as \u201cbodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death which results from it.\u201d\nAn unambiguous limitation on liability should be fully enforced. (See McDaniel v. Madison County Mutual Automobile Insurance (1981), 95 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 420 N.E.2d 1032.) The policy term \u201cone person\u201d has repeatedly been construed as \u201cone person injured,\u201d and that construction has been applied to all damages sustained by all persons due to an injury to one person. That policy term has not provided a means to extend an insurer\u2019s liability to loss of consortium. (Gass v. Carducci (1964), 52 Ill. App. 2d 394, 202 N.E.2d 73.) In addition, policy limits for all damages sustained by one person due to one accident have been applied no matter who paid related medical expenses for the insured person. (See McDaniel v. Madison County Mutual Automobile Insurance (1981), 95 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 420 N.E.2d 1032.) A claim for reimbursement of those expenses has been considered a claim for damages for bodily injury to the injured person. (95 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 420 N.E.2d 1032.) Loss of consortium is a personal rather than a bodily injury and is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person. Lepic v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. (Iowa 1987), 402 N.W.2d 758.\nWe find that the defendant insurer clearly defined bodily injury and limited its consequent liability for all damages due to the October 1985 injury to the plaintiffs\u2019 minor child. The defendant tendered the $25,000 uninsured motorist policy limits. All the plaintiffs\u2019 claims under the policy were encompassed therein, despite the plaintiffs\u2019 insured status. The plaintiffs\u2019 instant derivative personal claims, therefore, must fail.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBARRY, P.J., and SCOTT, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael J. Warner, of Braud/Warner, Ltd., of Rock Island, for appellants.",
      "James R. Patton and John W. Robertson, both of Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, of Moline, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DARRELL CREAMER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201487\u20140062\nOpinion filed September 28, 1987.\nMichael J. Warner, of Braud/Warner, Ltd., of Rock Island, for appellants.\nJames R. Patton and John W. Robertson, both of Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, of Moline, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 245,
  "last_page_order": 247
}