{
  "id": 906692,
  "name": "LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Landmark American Insurance v. Country Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1995-10-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201493\u20143383",
  "first_page": "1021",
  "last_page": "1024",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "275 Ill. App. 3d 1021"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "568 N.E.2d 77",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 3d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2540319
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/209/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "572 N.E.2d 962",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "964"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2605994
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "322"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/213/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.E.2d 97",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "99"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2906633
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 6722,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.698,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3133283060132077
    },
    "sha256": "d447003af21d0d6acdf6952c3e5ec49f95aaa48fdf9e0040e1ef0a44f91f4e19",
    "simhash": "1:7242c25a2614c2c6",
    "word_count": 1024
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:19:22.263448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE CERDA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant and counterplaintiff, Country Mutual Insurance Company, appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and counterdefendant, Landmark American Insurance Company. Defendant argues on appeal that plaintiff\u2019s insurance policy provided primary coverage for a complaint against plaintiff\u2019s insured.\nPlaintiff, Landmark American Insurance Company, brought a complaint for declaratory judgment that alleged that Edward Hough was insured under a commercial trucker\u2019s policy issued by plaintiff. The policy covered Hough\u2019s truck. On May 3, 1989, Hough leased his truck to Illinois Bulk Carriers (IBC), and Hough was involved in a collision on that date with an auto driven by Marian Solomon. IBC was insured under a commercial trucker\u2019s policy issued by defendant Country Mutual Insurance Company. Solomon filed a lawsuit against Hough for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. Plaintiff defended Hough. Hough tendered the defense in October 1991 to defendant on the basis that the Country Mutual policy afforded primary coverage for the claim. Defendant refused to undertake Hough\u2019s defense on the ground that its policy provided only excess coverage for the claim. Plaintiff sought a declaration that defendant\u2019s policy afforded primary coverage to Hough and that plaintiff\u2019s policy only afforded excess coverage to Hough.\nDefendant filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment alleging that plaintiff\u2019s policy provided primary coverage while defendant\u2019s policy provided excess coverage.\nHough was listed as the \"Named Insured\u201d on plaintiff\u2019s Landmark policy. Plaintiff\u2019s policy stated that throughout the policy the word \"you\u201d referred to the named insured. The additional insured endorsement of plaintiff\u2019s policy provided:\n\"It is understood and agreed the following is added as an Additional Insured but only as respects to the Named Insured\u2019s operations.\nIllinois Bulk Carriers, Inc.\n* * *\nAdvance premium: $150.00.\n* * *\nAll other terms and conditions of this policy remain unchanged.\u201d\nThe \"other insurance\u201d provision of plaintiff\u2019s Landmark policy stated:\n\"This Coverage Form\u2019s Liability Coverage is, primary for any covered 'auto\u2019 while hired or borrowed by you and used exclusively in your business as a 'trucker\u2019 and pursuant to operating rights granted to you by a public authority. This Coverage Form\u2019s Liability Coverage is excess over any other collectible insurance for any covered 'auto\u2019 while hired or borrowed from you by another 'trucker.\u2019 \u201d\nThe \"other insurance section\u201d of defendant\u2019s Country Mutual policy stated:\n\"This policy\u2019s liability coverage is primary for any covered 'auto\u2019 while hired or borrowed by you and used exclusively in your business as a 'trucker\u2019 and pursuant to operating rights granted to you by a public authority. This policy\u2019s liability coverage is excess over any other collectible insurance for any covered 'auto\u2019 while hired or borrowed from you by another 'trucker.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis in original.)\nPlaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and alleged that the parties did not dispute that the following facts were true at the time of the accident. Hough\u2019s truck was under lease to IBC. Hough\u2019s truck was being used exclusively in IBC\u2019s business of transporting property. Hough\u2019s truck was being driven pursuant to operating rights granted to IBC by the Illinois Commerce Commission.\nDefendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.\nThe trial court found that plaintiffs policy was excess and that defendant\u2019s policy was primary. The court noted at the hearing that the additional insured endorsement in the plaintiffs policy did not change the consequences of the other insurance clause provisions. Summary judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.\nDefendant appealed.\nDefendant argues on appeal that as a consequence of the additional insured endorsement, \"you\u201d referred to both named insureds (Hough and IBC) and coverage under plaintiff\u2019s policy was therefore primary for any truck leased to IBC by Hough. Interpreting the endorsement here to provide only excess coverage rendered the endorsement meaningless and valueless. The defendant also argued that the additional insured endorsement created an ambiguity that must be strictly construed against plaintiff because it did not recite whether plaintiff was affording IBC primary or excess coverage.\nWhere there are multiple insurers, in order to find which is the primary policy and which is the excess policy, we should examine the \"other insurance\u201d clauses of the policies. Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. (1970), 48 Ill. 2d 71, 76, 269 N.E.2d 97, 99; The Home Indemnity Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America (1991), 213 Ill. App. 3d 319, 322, 572 N.E.2d 962, 964.\nWe find that IBC was not covered by the second sentence of the \"other insurance\u201d provision of plaintiff\u2019s Landmark policy that stated when the policy was excess:\n\"This Coverage Form\u2019s Liability Coverage is excess over any other collectible insurance for any covered 'auto\u2019 while hired or borrowed from you by another 'trucker.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIn this case, IBC hired Hough\u2019s truck. Therefore, the policy issued by Landmark Insurance Company, the plaintiff in this case, was an excess coverage policy. Even if \"you\u201d refers to IBC in addition to Hough, IBC neither leased nor loaned a covered auto to another trucker; rather, IBC leased from Hough a covered auto. Hough leased his covered auto to IBC, and therefore Hough was covered by the second sentence of the \"other insurance\u201d provision which provided excess coverage. The provision is not ambiguous. A court must give priority to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in a policy. (Ansvar America Insurance Co. v. Hallberg (1991), 209 Ill. App. 3d 206, 210, 568 N.E.2d 77, 79.) IBC\u2019s being listed as an additional insured on Hough\u2019s policy did not alter the meaning of the \"other insurance\u201d provision. That IBC may not have received any additional coverage for its being listed as an additional insured does not affect the interpretation of the provision. Plaintiff\u2019s policy provided only excess coverage for Hough.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nRIZZI and TULLY, JJ, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE CERDA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John J. Foley & Associates, P.C., of Chicago (John J. Foley and Perry M. Shorris, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (Joshua G. Vincent and Adrienne I. Logan, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201493\u20143383\nOpinion filed October 18, 1995.\nJohn J. Foley & Associates, P.C., of Chicago (John J. Foley and Perry M. Shorris, of counsel), for appellant.\nHinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (Joshua G. Vincent and Adrienne I. Logan, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1021-01",
  "first_page_order": 1039,
  "last_page_order": 1042
}