{
  "id": 2968407,
  "name": "GORDON W. STEELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steele v. State Farm Insurance Companies",
  "decision_date": "1993-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-93-0409",
  "first_page": "776",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 Ill. App. 3d 776"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "614 N.E.2d 528",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 Ill. App. 3d 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 3950,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.411867578422581e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4831277808088425
    },
    "sha256": "79b69ba23eb5e2207834670c63aae725b621b7cd540458ebaaa705c87fd304af",
    "simhash": "1:3fe7eeced51812b5",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:45.810281+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LYTTON and SLATER, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GORDON W. STEELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BRESLIN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Gordon W. Steele, brought a declaratory judgment action against his own insurance companies, State Farm and Hartford, to force them to provide coverage to him under the underinsured motorist provisions of the policies he had with them. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We hold that the underinsured motorist provisions may not be stacked in order to provide the plaintiff relief. Thus, we affirm.\nThe plaintiff purchased and paid the premiums on three policies of automobile insurance. The policy with Hartford provided underinsured motorist protection of $100,000. The other two policies were with State Farm and provided underinsured motorist coverage of $50,000 each. In October 1991, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident which caused severe injuries. The plaintiff collected the limits of the other driver\u2019s insurance, $100,000, then sought to collect from the defendants pursuant to the underinsured motorist provisions of the policies.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to coverage under the underinsured motorist provisions of the policies in question.\nSection 143a \u2014 2 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143a \u2014 2 (West 1992)) provides that \u201cthe term \u2018underinsured motor vehicle\u2019 means a motor vehicle *** for which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability insurance policies *** is less than the limits for underinsured insurance coverage provided *** in the policy.\u201d Underinsured motorist provisions do not become applicable unless the limits of the tortfeasor\u2019s insurance are lower than the limits of the injured person\u2019s insurance. Marroquin v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. (1993), 245 Ill. App. 3d 604, 614 N.E.2d 528.\nIn the case at bar, the tortfeasor\u2019s insurance limits were $100,000. The plaintiffs limits were $100,000; $50,000; and $50,000. At first glance, it appears that the plaintiff may not recover because the tortfeasor\u2019s limits are equal to his own. However, the plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to \u201cstack\u201d his underinsured motorist provisions, leaving him with $200,000 in protection as opposed to the tortfeasor\u2019s $100,000 and allowing him to collect another $100,000 from the defendants. After carefully analyzing the statute in question, we find we cannot agree with the plaintiff.\nThe statute clearly contemplates that there will be more than one policy of insurance covering the tortfeasor when it provides that the \u201csum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability insurance policies\u201d (emphasis added) must be used in the determination of whether the vehicle is underinsured. However, the other half of the comparison is \u201cthe limits for underinsured coverage *** in the policy\" (emphasis added). (215 ILCS 5/143a \u2014 2(4) (West 1992).) Use of the singular \u201cpolicy\u201d clearly contemplates the existence of only one policy providing insurance for the injured party. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiff may not stack his under-insured motorist coverage.\nBecause the other driver does not meet the statutory definition of an underinsured motorist, the plaintiff is not entitled to payment under that provision of his policies. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLYTTON and SLATER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BRESLIN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laird M. Ozmon and James P. Stevenson, both of Laird M. Ozmon, Ltd., of Joliet (Douglas J. Simpson, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "D. Kendall Griffith and Peter C. Morse, both of Hinshaw & Culbertson (Kristin E. Hutson, of counsel), and Taylor, Miller, Sprowl, Hoffnagle & Merletti (Roger LeRoy, of counsel), both of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GORDON W. STEELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3-93-0409\nOpinion filed December 3, 1993.\nLaird M. Ozmon and James P. Stevenson, both of Laird M. Ozmon, Ltd., of Joliet (Douglas J. Simpson, of counsel), for appellant.\nD. Kendall Griffith and Peter C. Morse, both of Hinshaw & Culbertson (Kristin E. Hutson, of counsel), and Taylor, Miller, Sprowl, Hoffnagle & Merletti (Roger LeRoy, of counsel), both of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0776-01",
  "first_page_order": 794,
  "last_page_order": 795
}