{ "id": 2520686, "name": "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT DREHER et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Dreher", "decision_date": "1989-09-05", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201488\u20140662", "first_page": "182", "last_page": "186", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "190 Ill. App. 3d 182" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "60 N.E.2d 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 Ill. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4950546 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/325/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 N.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. App. 3d 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.E.2d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 835", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2782991 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/26/0835-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 N.E.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 Ill. App. 3d 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3613486 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/165/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 N.E.2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 1127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3204222 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/1127-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 270", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 Ill. App. 3d 763", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3582519 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/164/0763-01" ] }, { "cite": "425 N.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3102978 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/99/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 N.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 Ill. App. 3d 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3564291 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/136/0321-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 489, "char_count": 8773, "ocr_confidence": 0.773, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5145372999991127e-07, "percentile": 0.6681735112742094 }, "sha256": "29b3a99a1dbb151c0078ff93ab5d5b12238be02e5e992c0f570ba8bad1fdfe58", "simhash": "1:9716e094a6f6e5e0", "word_count": 1444 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:40.569733+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT DREHER et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WOMBACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), appeals the judgment entered by the trial court following a bench trial.\nOn February 21, 1987, defendant Robert Dreher (Robert) was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his mother\u2019s automobile. Robert was insured under a State Farm auto policy for the operation of his 1985 Chevrolet. However, the automobile that Robert was operating at the time of the accident belonged to Betty Dreher and was not insured under the same automobile insurance policy. Robert\u2019s auto policy contained the following exclusion of coverage:\n\u201cSection I \u2014 Liability Coverage A of the policy states: The liability coverage extends to the use, by AN INSURED, of a NEWLY ACQUIRED CAR, a TEMPORARY SUBSTITUTE CAR, or a NON-OWNED CAR.\nFurther qualifying the term non-owned car, (DEFINED WORDS WHICH ARE USED IN SEVERAL PARTS OF THE POLICY), NON-OWNED car means a CAR NOT:\na. Owned by,\nb. Registered in the name of, or\nc. Furnished or available for the regular or frequent use of:\nYOU, YOUR SPOUSE, or any RELATIVES.\u201d\nState Farm filed a- declaratory judgment action alleging that Robert was uninsured for the use of his mother\u2019s vehicle under the exclusionary clause contained in his policy.\nIn September 1986, Denise, Robert\u2019s wife, became employed, and in November, Robert\u2019s hours increased to 45 hours per week due to a promotion. Betty (Robert\u2019s mother) would baby-sit every day while Robert and Denise worked. Betty was the only baby-sitter used, and she normally sat for an entire work day at a time. After his promotion, Robert frequently used Betty\u2019s or her boyfriend\u2019s car, depending upon which vehicle Betty brought over to the defendants\u2019 home when she baby-sat. Denise would normally use the family car for the majority of the time. Robert would also use his mother\u2019s car for personal errands, but only after obtaining her permission. When Betty vacationed, she permitted Robert to use her car since she would not need it during her absence. There were other occasions when Robert would use his mother\u2019s car, e.g., when he performed mechanical work on the car. During this time, Robert and Denise attempted to save money so that they could purchase a second car, but in the meantime, Betty\u2019s car served as their second car.\nOn the date of the accident in question, Robert took his mother\u2019s car to work because his car was unavailable. He stated that he may have been driving his mother\u2019s car everyday for about four to five months preceding the accident.\nIn a recorded statement made shortly after the accident, he admitted that he did not need permission to use his mother\u2019s car and did not regularly ask Betty\u2019s permission each time he used her car. At trial, Robert testified that permission to use his mother\u2019s car was more of an implied understanding and it was routine for him to use her car. Robert stated that he would use Betty\u2019s car or her boyfriend\u2019s car two to three times a week. Betty Dreher did not restrict her son\u2019s use of her car, nor did she indicate when her permission for Robert to use her car would terminate.\nAfter the conclusion of the trial, the trial court issued its decision and found that Betty Dreher\u2019s car was not available or furnished for the regular or frequent use of Robert Dreher, and therefore, State Farm was liable to insure damages arising out of Robert\u2019s accident. State Farm filed its notice of appeal and this appeal follows.\nState Farm contends that the trial court\u2019s judgment was erroneous due to the uncontested evidence that Betty Dreher\u2019s car was available for Robert\u2019s regular and frequent use and that he so used it. We agree with State Farm and reverse the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAll parties agree that if Betty\u2019s vehicle was available for the regular and frequent use of Robert Dreher, State Farm would not be liable to cover Robert\u2019s accident. It is apparent that Denise primarily used their family auto, which was directly covered by State Farm\u2019s policy. Robert used his mother\u2019s vehicle for a four- to five-month period while she baby-sat Robert and Denise\u2019s child. Robert normally would use Betty\u2019s vehicle two to three times a week, sometimes daily, without asking permission, and he enjoyed 24-hour access to her vehicle when Betty was vacationing.\nOrdinarily, the findings of fact of the trial judge are given great deference and will not be set aside on appeal unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Wanless v. Rothballer (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 321, 483 N.E.2d 899.) In cases involving declaratory judgment actions, the trial court\u2019s exercise of discretion is not given the same deference as in other proceedings, and the appellate court is given a greater latitude in reviewing a declaratory judgment issued by a trial court. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R.R. Co. v. Reserve Insurance Co. (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 433, 425 N.E.2d 429.\nThe grant or denial of declaratory relief is discretionary, and absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court\u2019s determination will not be disturbed on appeal. (Machinis v. Board of Election Commissioners (1987), 164 Ill. App. 3d 763, 518 N.E.2d 270.) The evidence in this matter is basically undisputed. The evidence seems clear on its face that Betty Dreher\u2019s vehicle was available for the regular and frequent use of Robert, whenever he wished to use it.\nThe insured has the burden of proving coverage by a preponderance of the evidence when the insurance company asserts the \u201cregular use\u201d exclusion. Illinois courts have repeatedly denied insurance coverage for accidents involving a nonowned vehicle which was \u201cavailable for the regular and frequent use\u201d of the insured. (Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gorman (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 1127, 406 N.E.2d 169.) The Gorman case is analogous to the present case. The trial court held that the insurance company should cover the insured because the vehicle involved in the accident was not available for the regular or frequent use of the insured. The Fourth District Appellate Court reversed the trial court as a matter of law and held there was no coverage. In Gorman, the period of usage of the nonowned vehicle was two months and the frequency was daily. In this case, the period was four or five months and the frequency was nearly daily, fluctuating slightly week by week. In Gorman, the driver\u2019s use of the non-owned vehicle was restricted to the driver\u2019s employment, and Betty Dreher did not impose any restrictions on Robert\u2019s use of her automobile. Therefore, State Farm is entitled as a matter of law to prevail and is not liable to cover. Robert Dreher in this accident. Other Illinois courts have consistently held this position, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bundy (1988), 165 Ill. App. 3d 260, 519 N.E.2d 109, Continental National American Group v. Vaicunas (1975), 26 Ill. App. 3d 835, 325 N.E.2d 747, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Berke (1970), 123 Ill. App. 3d 455, 258 N.E.2d 838.\nState Farm also contends that the trial court should have considered Robert Dreher\u2019s frequent use of Betty\u2019s boyfriend\u2019s car when deciding whether State Farm is liable to cover Robert for his accident. The exclusion clause is not limited to the availability of a specific automobile for regular and frequent use. The evidence presented revealed that Robert frequently used his mother\u2019s boyfriend\u2019s car when his mother brought that over to baby-sit. No restrictions were placed on Robert\u2019s use of said vehicle, and it only depended on which vehicle Betty Dreher brought as to which one Robert drove. See Rodenkirk v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1945), 325 Ill. App. 421, 60 N.E.2d 269.\nTherefore, the uncontested facts indicate Betty Dreher\u2019s car was available to Robert for \u201cregular and frequent use\u201d and he was permitted to operate her vehicle without restriction or asking for permission.\nBased on the foregoing, the circuit court of Rock Island County is reversed.\nReversed.\nHEIPLE and BARRY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WOMBACHER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, of Moline (James R. Patton, of counsel), for appellant.", "Joseph F. Ryan, of East Moline, for appellees Henry Laleman and Dorothy Laleman.", "G. Trent Marquis, of Klockau, McCarthy, Ellison & Marquis, P.C., of Rock Island, for appellee Craig W. Jones.", "Sidney S. Deutsch, of Deutsch & Deutsch, of Rock Island, for appellee Robert Dreher.", "Craig L. Kavensky, of Winstein, Kavensky, Wallace & Doughty, of Rock Island, for appellee Mary Jo Ryan." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT DREHER et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201488\u20140662\nOpinion filed September 5, 1989.\nRehearing denied December 4, 1989.\nBozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, of Moline (James R. Patton, of counsel), for appellant.\nJoseph F. Ryan, of East Moline, for appellees Henry Laleman and Dorothy Laleman.\nG. Trent Marquis, of Klockau, McCarthy, Ellison & Marquis, P.C., of Rock Island, for appellee Craig W. Jones.\nSidney S. Deutsch, of Deutsch & Deutsch, of Rock Island, for appellee Robert Dreher.\nCraig L. Kavensky, of Winstein, Kavensky, Wallace & Doughty, of Rock Island, for appellee Mary Jo Ryan." }, "file_name": "0182-01", "first_page_order": 204, "last_page_order": 208 }