{ "id": 1073548, "name": "JOHN DEERE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees (Allstate Insurance Company et al., Counterplaintiffs-Appellees and Plaintiffs-Appellees and Counterdefendants-Appellants; Mark E. Gossett, Counterplaintiff-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "John Deere Insurance v. Allstate Insurance", "decision_date": "1998-07-29", "docket_number": "No. 1-97-2904", "first_page": "371", "last_page": "379", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 371" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "671 N.E.2d 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Ill. 2d 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 147650 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/173/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "606 N.E.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 Ill. App. 3d 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5156091 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" }, { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/238/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 N.E.2d 1204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4820940 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/154/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "674 N.E.2d 52", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 Ill. App. 3d 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1295605 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120" }, { "page": "121" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/285/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "664 N.E.2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 Ill. App. 3d 1022", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1156876 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1025" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/278/1022-01" ] }, { "cite": "650 N.E.2d 14", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 253275 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "81" }, { "page": "83-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/272/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 2d 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 864529 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245-46" }, { "page": "246", "parenthetical": "holding that \"pursuant to custom in the insurance industry, primary liability is generally placed on the insurer of the owner of an automobile rather than on the insurer of the operator\" (emphasis added)" }, { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/182/0240-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 696, "char_count": 19028, "ocr_confidence": 0.742, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5724524488299454e-07, "percentile": 0.6789399690870008 }, "sha256": "323f4b1a0027bbdd0efc99017958dc83efb3307ca0ba3d37bf0795d4bb2ca295", "simhash": "1:28f7ae8ecdcda4b1", "word_count": 3087 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:38.148323+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHN DEERE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees (Allstate Insurance Company et al., Counterplaintiffs-Appellees and Plaintiffs-Appellees and Counterdefendants-Appellants; Mark E. Gossett, Counterplaintiff-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BURKE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff John Deere Insurance Company (John Deere) appeals from an order of the circuit court denying its motion for summary judgment and granting defendants Allstate Insurance Company\u2019s (Allstate), John Thomas\u2019 (Thomas) and Mark Gossett\u2019s (Gossett) cross-motions for summary judgment in John Deere\u2019s declaratory judgment action to determine whether it had an obligation to defend or indemnify Thomas, Allstate\u2019s insured, in an underlying action filed by Gossett against Thomas, for injuries Gossett allegedly suffered as a result of being struck by an automobile driven by Thomas. On appeal, John Deere contends that: (1) Thomas was not an insured under the terms of a garage insurance policy issued by John Deere (John Deere policy) to Rock River Ford, Inc. (Rock River Ford), an automobile dealership; (2) Illinois law does not require automobile dealers to provide liability insurance coverage to permissive users of their insured automobiles; and (3) even if Thomas was an insured under the John Deere policy, the liability coverage under the policy was limited to the \u201c$20,000/$40,000\u201d mandatory minimum limits set forth in sections 7 \u2014 203 and 7 \u2014 601 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. 625 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 203, 7 \u2014 601 (West 1994). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.\nOn August 9, 1995, Rock River Ford gave Thomas, its customer, permission to test-drive one of its automobiles, during which time Thomas allegedly struck and injured Gossett, a pedestrian. On the day of the accident, Rock River Ford was insured under the John Deere policy. Rock River Ford had previously referred to this policy in a certificate of insurance which was attached to its 1994 application to the Secretary of State for a new and used car dealers\u2019 license for the year ending December 31, 1995. In the certificate, Rock River Ford specifically stated that the policy included garage liability limits in the amount of $500,000 per accident. In fact, section IV of the John Deere Policy, entitled \u201cGARAGE LIABILITY LIMITS/COVERAGES,\u201d provided that \u201ceach \u2018accident\u2019 \u201d related to \u201cgarage operations\u201d would be covered in the amount of $500,000. Under the John Deere policy issued to Rock River Ford, an \u201cinsured\u201d was defined as follows:\n\u201cWHO IS AN INSURED\na. The following are \u2018insureds\u2019 for covered \u2018autos\u2019:\n(1) You for any covered \u2018auto.\u2019\n(2) Anyone else while using with your permission a covered \u2018auto\u2019 you own *** except:\n(d) Your customers, if your business is shown in the Declarations as an \u2018auto\u2019 dealership. However, if a customer of yours:\n(i) Has no other available insurance (whether primary, excess, or contingent), they are an \u2018insured\u2019 but only up to the compulsory or financial responsibility law limits where the covered \u2018auto\u2019 is principally garaged.\n(ii) Has other available insurance (whether primary, excess, or contingent) less than the compulsory or financial responsibility law limits where the covered \u2018auto\u2019 is principally garaged, they are an \u2018insured\u2019 only for the amount by which the compulsory or financial responsibility law limits exceed the limit of their other insurance.\u201d\nThomas was also personally covered at the time of the alleged accident by a separate automobile liability insurance policy issued to him by Allstate (Allstate policy) that had liability limits of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence. The Allstate policy defined an \u201cinsured auto\u201d as, inter alia, a \u201cnon-owned private passenger auto used by you or a resident relative with the owner\u2019s permission. This auto must not be available or furnished for the regular use of an insured person.\u201d The Allstate policy further provided:\n\u201cIf There Is Other Insurance\nIf an insured person is using a substitute private passenger auto or non-owned auto, our liability insurance will be excess over other collectible insurance. If more than one policy applies on a primary basis to an accident involving your insured auto, we will bear our proportionate share with other collectible liability insurance.\u201d\nAfter the alleged accident, Gossett filed a complaint against Thomas in the circuit court of Winnebago County, Illinois (Gossett lawsuit). Allstate informed John Deere that it expected John Deere to provide Thomas with liability insurance coverage. John Deere responded that it was denying coverage to Thomas because Thomas did not qualify as an insured under the \u201cWHO IS AN INSURED\u201d provision in the John Deere policy.\nOn April 30, 1996, John Deere filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of Cook County, arguing that Thomas was not insured under the John Deere policy because he had his own insurance policy from Allstate with sufficient limits to comply with Illinois law. John Deere also pled in the alternative that if the trial court should find that Thomas was an insured under its policy, the maximum liability coverage available to him was at least $20,000 per person for death or bodily injury and $40,000 per accident for death or bodily injury \u2014 the mandatory minimum limits as required by the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 203, 7 \u2014 601 (West 1994)) \u2014 and not the greater limit of $500,000 contracted for by Rock River Ford under the policy issued to it.\nOn August 20, 1996, Allstate and Thomas filed a joint counterclaim for declaratory judgment, arguing that: (1) Thomas was an insured under the John Deere policy and, therefore, the John Deere policy provided primary coverage to Thomas for any liability he may have incurred while test-driving the vehicle owned by Rock River Ford; (2) the Allstate policy provided excess coverage to Thomas under the same factual circumstances; and (3) an escape clause contained in the John Deere policy, which provided that John Deere\u2019s coverage does not apply when a customer has other insurance in an amount equal to what is required by Illinois\u2019 mandatory insurance law, was unenforceable. On September 19, 1996, Gossett filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, arguing that the John Deere policy provided a liability limit in the amount of $500,000, the Allstate policy provided a liability limit in the amount of $50,000, and the escape clause in the John Deere policy was unenforceable.\nOn April 25, 1997, John Deere, Allstate, Thomas and Gossett filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On June 19, 1997, the trial court denied John Deere\u2019s cross-motion for summary judgment and granted Allstate\u2019s, Thomas\u2019 and Gossett\u2019s motions for summary judgment. The trial court specifically found that Thomas was an insured under the John Deere policy, the John Deere policy provided primary coverage to Thomas in the amount of $500,000, the Allstate policy provided excess coverage to Thomas in the amount of $50,000 and the John Deere policy contained an unenforceable escape clause. This appeal followed.\nOn April 22, 1998, Allstate and Thomas filed a motion in this court for leave to cite additional authority, which we granted. In the motion, Allstate and Thomas argued that our supreme court\u2019s decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 182 Ill. 2d 240 (1998), \u201cdirectly addresses\u201d the issue of whether the John Deere policy provided coverage for permissive users of automobiles owned by car dealerships. The State Farm court held that the Illinois Vehicle Code mandates that garage insurance policies contain an omnibus clause that provides primary coverage \u201cinsuring those driving a vehicle with the owner\u2019s permission.\u201d State Farm, 182 Ill. 2d at 245-46.\nDuring oral arguments before this court on April 29, 1998, John Deere acknowledged that \u201cin light of the State Farm holding,\u201d it owed Thomas a \u201cfull and unequivocal defense in the Gossett lawsuit.\u201d Because John Deere\u2019s concession has mooted its first two arguments on appeal \u2014 that Thomas is not an insured under the terms of the John Deere policy and Illinois law does not require automobile dealers to provide coverage to permissive users of their insured autos \u2014 we need only address John Deere\u2019s argument regarding the amount of coverage pursuant to the policy issued to Rock River Ford.\nJohn Deere contends that even though Thomas is an insured under the policy, the amount of liability coverage, as \u201ccontemplated by the terms of the John Deere policy\u201d and as set forth in the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 203, 7 \u2014 601 (West 1994)), should be \u201ccapped\u201d at \u201c$20,000/$40,000\u201d with respect to the Gossett lawsuit. Allstate, Thomas and Gossett contend that because the John Deere policy clearly provides liability coverage of $500,000 per accident for garage operations in excess of the mandatory $20,000/$40,000 requirement of the Code, John Deere and Rock River Ford are \u201cbound to these higher limits.\u201d\nGossett specifically argues that John Deere\u2019s assertion \u201cthat the maximum exposure of John Deere is $20,000 or $100,000\u201d is contrary to the certificate of insurance John Deere filed with the Secretary of State by which it \u201cintended to convince the Secretary of State that Rock River had \u2018all\u2019 Rock River automobiles covered and that the coverage \u2018exceeded\u2019 the minimum requirements\u201d of $100,000 for bodily injury to, or death of, any person and $300,000 for bodily injury to, or death of, two or more persons in any one accident, as set forth in section 5 \u2014 101(b)(6) of the Code (625 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 101(b)(6) (West 1994)). John Deere counters that its certificate of insurance is \u201cmerely\u201d proof that Rock River procured a general liability insurance policy and that the \u201cliability limits covering the location where Rock River was doing business was $500,000.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) According to John Deere, the certificate of insurance \u201cneither affirmatively nor negatively modifies the coverages afforded by the John Deere policy,\u201d and there is \u201cabsolutely nothing contained in the certificate *** that addresses what coverage, if any, is afforded permissive users of Rock River\u2019s vehicles.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\n\u201cThe interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law properly decided on a motion for summary judgment.\u201d Steinberg v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 272 Ill. App. 3d 79, 81, 650 N.E.2d 14 (1995). If the terms of an insurance policy are ambiguous, it must be construed in favor of the insured; however, if the terms are unambiguous, there is no need for construction, and the policy will be enforced as written unless it contravenes public policy. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Cisco, 278 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1025, 664 N.E.2d 235 (1996). Review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 285 Ill. App. 3d 115, 120, 674 N.E.2d 52 (1996). \u201cSummary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102, 607 N.E.2d 1204 (1992).\nThe Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) requires that owners of motor vehicles acquire liability insurance covering a vehicle in an amount \u201cno less than the minimum amounts set forth *** under Section 7 \u2014 203 of this Code.\u201d 625 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 601(a) (West 1994). Section 7 \u2014 203 of the Code provides that the mandatory minimum limits of liability insurance for motor vehicles shall be in the amount of not less than $20,000 for the death or injury of any one person in any one accident, and $40,000 for the death or injury of two or more persons in any one accident. 625 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 203 (West 1994).\nSection 5 \u2014 101(b)(6) of the Code applicable to new vehicle dealers (the Illinois New Car Dealers Licensing Act), requires:\n\u201cA statement that the applicant has complied with the appropriate liability requirement. A Certificate of Insurance *** shall be included with each application covering each location at which he proposes to act as a new vehicle dealer. The policy [of insurance] must provide liability coverage in the minimum amounts of $100,000 for bodily injury to, or death of, any person, $300,000 for bodily injury to, or death of, two or more persons in any one accident, ***.\u201d 625 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 101(b)(6) (West 1994).\nThe \u201cIllinois Used Car Dealers Licensing Act\u201d (625 ILCS 5/5\u2014 102(b)(4) (West 1994)) contains a provision identical to that in the Illinois New Car Dealers Licensing Act. Section 7 \u2014 317 of the Code states that a vehicle owner\u2019s liability insurance policy:\n\u201c1. Shall designate by explicit description or by appropriate reference, all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby intended to be granted;\n2. Shall insure the person named therein and any other person using or responsible for the use of such motor vehicle or vehicles with the express or implied permission of the insured!.] \u201d 625 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 317(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 1994).\nA plain reading of these Code sections reveals that the legislature intended that the amount of liability insurance that must be carried on a particular automobile is not determined by the operator of the automobile but, rather, the automobile itself. Therefore, the amount of liability insurance required by the Code for an automobile should not change according to the identity of the person who is driving the automobile at the time an accident occurs. See State Farm, 182 Ill. 2d at 246 (holding that \u201cpursuant to custom in the insurance industry, primary liability is generally placed on the insurer of the owner of an automobile rather than on the insurer of the operator\u201d (emphasis added)). To hold otherwise would defeat the public policy considerations that motivated the enactment of the New and Used Car Dealers Licensing Acts, which mandate that automobile dealerships \u201cmust provide liability coverage in the minimum amounts\u201d of $100,000/$300,000 (625 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 101(b)(6), 5 \u2014 102(b)(4) (West 1994)), because such a holding would illogically mandate a higher limit of liability coverage when an automobile dealership\u2019s employee is driving the insured automobile as an agent of the dealership, yet would not apply to the customer of the dealership permissively test driving the same automobile. We therefore hold that the Code was intended to apply to customers/permissive users like Thomas who expose the public to a risk when they test-drive vehicles, while at the same time perform acts that serve to increase the commercial success of the dealership. See State Farm, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 121 (holding that the purpose of the Code is the protection of the public, and \u201cby permitting customers to test-drive its vehicles, the car dealer receives a vital benefit to the success of its business, i.e., an exponential increase in the probability the permitted user will actually purchase the test-driven vehicle\u201d). See also Hertz Corp. v. Garrott, 238 Ill. App. 3d 231, 239, 606 N.E.2d 219 (1992), where a rental car company rented a vehicle to a person who was involved in an accident with a third party. The rental agreement provided liability coverage limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, whereas the mandatory insurance requirements for rental cars was $50,000 under the Code. The Hertz court rejected the car rental company\u2019s argument that its obligation to indemnify third parties was limited to the $50,000 amount required by statute and not the higher limits provided in its rental agreement, and held that the statute \u201cin no way define[d] the scope of the obligation that may be assumed by the rental agency by separate agreement,\u201d and that if the rental company \u201cwanted to provide liability protection at a level that would merely satisfy the minimum requirement under the statute, it was free to have done so in the contract.\u201d Hertz, 238 Ill. App. 3d at 239.\nWe briefly note that John Deere\u2019s reliance on Steinberg, in support of its assertion that there is \u201cample authority\u201d for this court to hold that it is only liable for \u201c$20,000/$40,000\u201d coverage under its policy, is misplaced. After the Steinberg court held that the permissive driver who had his own insurance coverage in compliance with the minimum requirements of the Code was not \u201can insured\u201d under the automobile dealership\u2019s garage policy, it commented in dicta that, had it found coverage under the garage policy, it would have found that the limits of such coverage were $20,000/40,000 pursuant to section 7 \u2014 601 of the Code, and not $100,000/300,000 pursuant to section 5 \u2014 101(b) of the Code. Steinberg, 272 Ill. App. 3d at 83-84. We note, however, that any statement contained in a judicial opinion which is not essential to the disposition of the case or logically necessary to the rationale for the disposition, is not authoritative. Geer v. Kadera, 173 Ill. 2d 398, 414, 671 N.E.2d 692 (1996).\nIn light of the Code\u2019s requirement that automobile dealerships provide liability coverage of at least $100,000/$300,000 for their automobiles (625 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 101(b)(6), 5 \u2014 102(b)(4) (West 1994)), and our supreme court\u2019s holding in State Farm that \u201ca liability insurance policy issued to the owner of a vehicle must cover the named insured and any other person using the vehicle with the named insured\u2019s permission\u201d (State Farm, 182 Ill. 2d at 244), we reject the dicta in Steinberg and hold that the limit of the John Deere policy was at least $100,000/$300,000. Moreover, because Rock River determined that garage coverage would meet or exceed the $100,000/$300,000 coverage required by section 5 \u2014 101(b), and specifically represented in its certificate of insurance that it had procured $500,000 in garage coverage, we do not accept John Deere\u2019s present attempt to limit its liability coverage amount in the Gossett lawsuit to either $100,000 as required by section 5 \u2014 101(b) or $20,000 as required by section 7 \u2014 601(a) of the Code for bodily injury sustained by a person involved in an accident. Because Rock River obligated itself to a $500,000 limit in its certificate of insurance, which it was required to file with the Secretary of State pursuant to section 5 \u2014 101(b) of the Code, it cannot now be heard to deny the coverage amount it contracted for to limit the same to either $20,000 or $100,000.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLEAVITT, EJ., and GORDON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BURKE" } ], "attorneys": [ "Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, of Chicago (Shaun McFarland Baldwin and Eric J. Emerson, of counsel), for appellant.", "Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (Carol Proctor and Joshua G. Vincent, of counsel), for appellees Allstate Insurance Company and John G. Thomas.", "Peter Alexander, Ltd., of Rockford (Peter Alexander, of counsel), for appellee Mark E. Gossett." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN DEERE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees (Allstate Insurance Company et al., Counterplaintiffs-Appellees and Plaintiffs-Appellees and Counterdefendants-Appellants; Mark E. Gossett, Counterplaintiff-Appellee).\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201497\u20142904\nOpinion filed July 29, 1998,\nnunc pro tunc June 30, 1998.\nTressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, of Chicago (Shaun McFarland Baldwin and Eric J. Emerson, of counsel), for appellant.\nHinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (Carol Proctor and Joshua G. Vincent, of counsel), for appellees Allstate Insurance Company and John G. Thomas.\nPeter Alexander, Ltd., of Rockford (Peter Alexander, of counsel), for appellee Mark E. Gossett." }, "file_name": "0371-01", "first_page_order": 391, "last_page_order": 399 }