{
  "id": 5204555,
  "name": "JAMES ROBERTS, a Minor, by Cheryl Roberts, his Mother and Next Friend, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Country Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1992-07-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201491\u20140597",
  "first_page": "713",
  "last_page": "717",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "231 Ill. App. 3d 713"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 2d 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 N.E.2d 154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2534792
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "547"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/210/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.E.2d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5405907
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/57/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.E.2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 2d 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2472717
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/127/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 N.E.2d 290",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5642364
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/50/0453-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 430,
    "char_count": 7896,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.662170294177528e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5282578250701102
    },
    "sha256": "67d8c5bea8907e07b110a75a9f40c1a22916d0797f7e4982e0d34274986dbadc",
    "simhash": "1:0389bbdc262c30e8",
    "word_count": 1250
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:19.187731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES ROBERTS, a Minor, by Cheryl Roberts, his Mother and Next Friend, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GORMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis action was brought by plaintiffs to recover under an insurance policy issued to them by defendant. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined that the uninsured all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on which minor plaintiff was a passenger was covered as an uninsured motor vehicle under the policy and that defendant could not set off medical payments made against amounts payable under plaintiffs\u2019 uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm.\nDefendant Country Mutual Insurance Company issued a policy to plaintiffs Cheryl and James Roberts which provided uninsured motorist coverage with limits of $100,000 and medical payments coverage with limits of $25,000. The policy defined \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d as \u201c[a] land motor vehicle designed for use principally on public roads.\u201d In the uninsured motorist provision, the policy stated that \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d was \u201cany type of motor vehicle or trailer to which a bodily injury liability bond or policy does not apply at the time of the accident.\u201d Moreover, in the same provision, it was set out that \u201can uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle does not include any motor vehicle which is a farm-type tractor or self-propelled equipment designed principally for use off public roads. This applies only while the equipment is not on public roads.\u201d\nThe policy also provided that \u201c[ajmounts payable for damages under Uninsured Motorists coverage will be reduced by all sums paid under Medical Payments, Personal Injury Protection or Underinsured Motorists coverage of any personal vehicle policy issued by us.\u201d\nOn June 27, 1989, minor plaintiff James Roberts was injured while a passenger on an ATV, a \u201cYamaha Moto 4,\u201d which was driven by a friend of his. Plaintiffs sought uninsured motorist benefits under their policy. Defendant did not pay these benefits because it claimed that the ATV was not a \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d under the policy definitions. Plaintiffs also sought benefits under the medical payment provision. Defendant paid plaintiffs $25,000, its maximum liability under that provision.\nPlaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the applicability of the policy to the uninsured motorist claim. Granting plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment, the trial court entered an order finding that the language of the policy defining \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d was contrary to the statutory requirements of the Illinois Insurance Code. It also found that defendant may not set off medical payments made against amounts payable under plaintiffs\u2019 uninsured motorist coverage if plaintiffs\u2019 total damages determined in arbitration should exceed $125,000.\nThe first issue raised for review is whether there is coverage for this ATV under the terms of the policy or by virtue of Insurance Code provisions.\nUnder the general rule, in the absence of ambiguity, words in an insurance policy are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Childers (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 453, 365 N.E.2d 290.) This policy unambiguously excludes the ATV from coverage. The policy defines a \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d as \u201ca land motor vehicle designed for use principally on public roads.\u201d This definition controls when the policy defines \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d as \u201cany type of motor vehicle *** to which a bodily injury liability *** policy does not apply at the time of the accident.\u201d A Yamaha Moto 4, according to the owner\u2019s manual, is designed for off-road use only. It is not designed for use principally on public roads. Under the terms of this policy, plaintiffs\u2019 ATV is not a motor vehicle.\nHowever, the real issue is not whether the ATV comes within the definition of uninsured motor vehicle contained in the policy, but whether the policy\u2019s exclusionary language violates section 143a of the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 73, par. 755a) and therefore is rendered unenforceable by section 442 of that Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 73, par. 1054).\nWith regard to uninsured motorist coverage, the Illinois Insurance Code sets forth the following:\n\u201c[N]o policy *** insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be renewed or delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in Section 7 \u2014 203 of The Illinois Vehicle Code for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 73, par. 755a.\nThe Insurance Code does not contain a definition of \u201cmotor vehicle.\u201d However, in Hartford Accident & Indemnity v. Holada (1970), 127 Ill. App. 2d 472, 262 N.E.2d 359, the Illinois Vehicle Code definition of \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d was incorporated by reference into the insuranee statute. In accord with that case, we look to the Vehicle Code definition of \u201cmotor vehicle.\u201d\nThe Vehicle Code broadly defines \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d as \u201c[e]very vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power and motorized wheelchairs.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 951/2, par. 1 \u2014 146.) This statute defines \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d in such a way that it clearly includes this ATV.\nIf an ATV was not to be considered a motor vehicle for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute, the legislature could have provided an exclusion. Moreover, even the exception for farm equipment and off-road vehicles in the uninsured motorist statute applies only when those vehicles are, in fact, not being operated on public roads.\nThe second issue for review is whether the trial court erred in declaring that defendant is not entitled to set off medical payments made against payments for uninsured motorist coverage if plaintiff\u2019s damages, as determined in arbitration, exceed $125,000.\nIn Glidden v. The Farmers Automobile Insurance Association (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 330, 312 N.E.2d 247, the supreme court stated that setoffs apply only where necessary to prevent double exposure for medical payments. In that case, plaintiff\u2019s wife was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist. He sued his insurance company in a declaratory judgment action to construe the limits of coverage under his three automobile liability policies issued by defendant. The defendant contended that payments made under the medical payments provisions must be set off against the payments made under the uninsured motorist coverage. The supreme court disagreed and enunciated the rule stated above. We believe that the same rule is applicable in this instance. Moreover, if plaintiffs here are in a better position than if the uninsured driver had had the minimum limits, \u201c[i]f there is to be a \u2018windfall\u2019 *** it should be to the insured, who paid the several premiums, rather than to the insurer, which collected them.\u201d Greenawalt v. State Farm Insurance Co. (1991), 210 Ill. App. 3d 543, 547, 569 N.E.2d 154, aff'd (1991), 139 Ill. 2d 595.\nAffirmed.\nBARRY, P.J., and SLATER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GORMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Karen L. Kendall and Timothy D. Seifert, both of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria (Gary D. Nelson, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Nessler, Clark & Shay, of Peoria (Gary Clark, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES ROBERTS, a Minor, by Cheryl Roberts, his Mother and Next Friend, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201491\u20140597\nOpinion filed July 9, 1992.\nKaren L. Kendall and Timothy D. Seifert, both of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria (Gary D. Nelson, of counsel), for appellant.\nNessler, Clark & Shay, of Peoria (Gary Clark, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0713-01",
  "first_page_order": 733,
  "last_page_order": 737
}