{ "id": 2693194, "name": "TERRY CROSS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant (Dennis Moehring et al., Defendants-Appellees)", "name_abbreviation": "Cross v. Country Companies", "decision_date": "1989-09-28", "docket_number": "No. 4-89-0384", "first_page": "847", "last_page": "850", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "188 Ill. App. 3d 847" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "513 N.E.2d 1168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1917, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 Ill. App. 3d 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3649190 ], "year": 1917, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/160/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 N.E.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 2d 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5243247 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/44/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 N.E.2d 52", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5275997 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "171-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/50/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 N.E.2d 73", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76-77" } ], "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": "514 N.E.2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 Ill. App. 3d 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3467934 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224-25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/161/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 N.E. 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "487-88" }, { "page": "485", "parenthetical": "\"damages on account of injury to or death of one person is limited to $5,000 and subject to the same limit for each person\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 Ill. 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4890070 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" }, { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/280/0103-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 398, "char_count": 7298, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.164542198561298e-07, "percentile": 0.7703082303253973 }, "sha256": "4e260016c0dfefe64cbd89c66954b36fdf131e7fd8a9cebea3d0e59ef1c2515e", "simhash": "1:730ee78b35468ab7", "word_count": 1168 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:06.130198+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "TERRY CROSS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant (Dennis Moehring et al., Defendants-Appellees)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Country Companies appeals an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss. That motion contended that a claim for loss of consortium was not covered by its insurance policy because the per person policy limit had been paid to the plaintiffs as a result of settlement negotiations. The trial court disagreed.\nWe reverse.\nDefendant Country Companies issued a motor vehicle insurance policy to defendant Dennis Moehring, whose wife was involved in an automobile accident with plaintiff Terry Cross when this insurance policy was in effect. The parties involved agreed that the insurance company would pay Terry $50,000 in exchange for a covenant not to sue. The insurance policy limited the company\u2019s bodily injury liability to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence.\nPlaintiffs Terry Cross and Jenny Cross filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against all of the defendants, alleging that they are additionally liable for a loss of consortium claim. In response, Country Companies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for declaratory judgment with prejudice, claiming that the loss of consortium claim was limited by the $50,000-per-person ceiling of the policy. Defendants also argued that this claim was precluded because the insurer had previously paid the plaintiffs $50,000 in settlement.\nThe trial court denied Country Companies\u2019 motion to dismiss, but granted its request under Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (107 Ill. 2d R. 308(a)) to make a finding that its order denying the motion \u201cinvolves a question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.\u201d In the exercise of our discretion, we accepted the defendant\u2019s appeal from the order denying the motion to dismiss. At issue is whether defendant\u2019s insurance company must pay loss of consortium damages when the \u201cper person\u201d liability limit under the policy had already been paid to the plaintiff who suffered personal injuries in the automobile accident.\nThe automobile insurance policy in question provides indemnity of up to $50,000 for each person who suffered a bodily injury as a result of an accident with the insured. Specifically, section 1 of the policy states the following:\n\u201cIf you have paid for coverage under Section 1 ***, we promise to pay all sums in behalf of an insured which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of:\n1. bodily injury (Coverage A), including death resulting from that bodily injury, sustained by any person; I\n2. damage to or destruction of property (Coverage B), including loss of use.\nThe bodily injury or property damage must be caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of an insured vehicle, including loading and unloading, or of any nonowned vehicle. Under Coverages A and B, damages include required care, loss of services, loss of use and death.\u201d\nAnother section of the policy limits the amount recoverable. However, under \u201cLimits of Liability,\u201d paragraph 2(a) of the policy provides:\n\u201cThe bodily injury liability limit for \u2018each person\u2019 is the maximum amount we will pay for bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident. That maximum amount includes any claim of other persons for damages arising out of that bodily injury. The figure listed is the most we will pay for any person in any one accident regardless of the number of insureds, claims made, insured vehicles or premiums shown on the declarations page.\u201d\nA one-page addendum to the policy sets forth the $50,000 \u201cper person\u201d liability limit, as well as the $100,000 \u201cper occurrence\u201d maximum.\nThe parties cite no case which resolves whether the loss of consortium is a bodily injury. Instead, whether this type of claim is covered depends upon the particular policy language at issue.\nIn a case involving an insurance policy defining \u201cbodily injury\u201d as \u201csickness, disease, death or loss of services,\u201d one court has concluded that the plaintiff\u2019s loss of consortium claim was a separate bodily injury worthy of coverage. (See Giardino v. Fierke (1987), 160 Ill. App. 3d 648, 513 N.E.2d 1168.) However, indemnification for loss of consortium was denied in several other cases in which the policy language failed to define loss of consortium as a bodily injury. See Ravenswood Hospital v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1917), 280 Ill. 103, 109, 117 N.E. 485, 487-88 (indemnifying for damages on account of bodily injuries or death); Creamer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1987), 161 Ill. App. 3d 223, 224-25, 514 N.E.2d 214, 215 (\u201cbodily injury\u201d includes sickness, disease, or death); Gass v. Carducci (1964), 52 Ill. App. 2d 394, 402-02a, 202 N.E.2d 73, 76-77 (fails to define bodily injury); Guetter v. Hooker Glass & Paint Manufacturing Co. (1964), 50 Ill. App. 2d 164, 171-73, 200 N.E.2d 52, 55-56 (damages include costs for care and loss of services because of bodily injury); Oda v. Highway Insurance Co. (1963), 44 Ill. App. 2d 235, 255-56, 194 N.E.2d 489, 500 (bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, is covered).\nThe defendant\u2019s automobile insurance policy covers \u201cbodily injury\u201d (coverage A), including death resulting from that \u201cbodily injury,\u201d but fails to explicitly define \u201cbodily injury.\u201d The policy later explains that under coverage A, \u201cdamages include required care, loss of services, loss of use and death.\u201d We find that the language describing the damages does not define loss of services as a separate bodily injury but, instead, explains the extent of liability coverage.\nFurthermore, the \u201cLimits of Liability\u201d section of the policy provides that the maximum \u201cper person\u201d amount includes all claims for damages arising out of that bodily injury by the person injured as well as any other claimant. Similar language in the Ravenswood Hospital decision led the court to decide that the plaintiff\u2019s loss of consortium claim was not independent of the personal injury claim of his spouse. Ravenswood Hospital, 280 Ill. at 109, 117 N.E. at 485 (\u201cdamages on account of injury to or death of one person is limited to $5,000 and subject to the same limit for each person\u201d).\nWe find that the policy language of the instant case is similar to that in Ravenswood Hospital and conclude that the clear intent of the policy was to limit loss of consortium claims to the personally injured \u201cper person\u201d maximum. Since the defendant\u2019s insurance company has paid the plaintiffs the maximum \u201cper person\u201d amount, no further recovery for loss of consortium will be allowed. The trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss is reversed.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed.\nReversed.\nMcCULLOUGH, P.J., and GREEN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Frederic L. Kenney, of Armstrong, Winters, Prince, Featherstun & Johnson, of Decatur, for appellant.", "Donald K. Birner, of Pekin, for appellees Terry Cross and Jenny Cross.", "John R. Gehlbach Law Office, of Lincoln, for appellees Dennis Moehring and Brenda Moehring." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TERRY CROSS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant (Dennis Moehring et al., Defendants-Appellees).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 89\u20140384\nOpinion filed September 28, 1989.\nFrederic L. Kenney, of Armstrong, Winters, Prince, Featherstun & Johnson, of Decatur, for appellant.\nDonald K. Birner, of Pekin, for appellees Terry Cross and Jenny Cross.\nJohn R. Gehlbach Law Office, of Lincoln, for appellees Dennis Moehring and Brenda Moehring." }, "file_name": "0847-01", "first_page_order": 869, "last_page_order": 872 }