{ "id": 511429, "name": "PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTATE OF ROBIN M. GOBEN, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Pekin Insurance v. Goben", "decision_date": "1999-03-09", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201498\u20140189", "first_page": "639", "last_page": "649", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "303 Ill. App. 3d 639" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 1044", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1049", "parenthetical": "court held that the existence of two declarations pages, both setting $10,000 limits for liability for each person, created an ambiguity permitting the aggregation of those coverage amounts" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5454381 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179-80", "parenthetical": "court held that the existence of two declarations pages, both setting $10,000 limits for liability for each person, created an ambiguity permitting the aggregation of those coverage amounts" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "619 N.E.2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. 2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 777563 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/156/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.E. 371", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1907, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374", "parenthetical": "expression of opinion considered to be judicial dictum held to have force of judicial determination" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 Ill. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5626334 ], "year": 1907, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337", "parenthetical": "expression of opinion considered to be judicial dictum held to have force of judicial determination" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/227/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 N.E. 1080", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1895, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 6045834 ], "year": 1895, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/158/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 F.3d 462", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 977943 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "court held that antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles on the declarations page with separate coverages and separate premiums listed for each vehicle" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/128/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "620 N.E.2d 355", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. 2d 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 777559 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/156/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 F.2d 721", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 870393 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/578/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "425 F. Supp. 1381", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7871007 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1387" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/425/1381-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.E. 782", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 Ill. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4779967 ], "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/265/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 N.E. 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1919, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 Ill. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4958576 ], "year": 1919, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/288/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 N.E.2d 1290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 Ill. App. 3d 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5387704 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/246/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 N.E.2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 Ill. App. 3d 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2525172 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/5/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "455 N.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. App. 3d 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5660825 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575-76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/118/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "687 N.E.2d 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75" }, { "page": "75" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 Ill. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 317117 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" }, { "page": "479" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/177/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "620 N.E.2d 1073", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1077" }, { "page": "1077" }, { "page": "1077" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. 2d 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 777543 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390" }, { "page": "390-91" }, { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/156/0384-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 944, "char_count": 22586, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.909741994414967e-07, "percentile": 0.9339590841010422 }, "sha256": "d2c4276be85a9aa3ca8f9312775349b34da3d397e2b128bdb5d6edc4d63ab09f", "simhash": "1:93f725d586ddc4f6", "word_count": 3618 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:17.679955+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTATE OF ROBIN M. GOBEN, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE MAAG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Pekin Insurance Company (Pekin), filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the defendant, the estate of Robin M. Goben, deceased (Estate), seeking a declaration that Robin did not qualify as an insured under the automobile liability policy issued to the partnership of Gary Whitlock and Frank Goben, doing business as Freedom Heating & Air Conditioning Company (the Company). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Estate and against Pekin, finding that the Pekin policy provided underinsuredmotorist coverage to the Estate and that such coverage could be stacked for a total of $1 million in available coverage based on the presence of two vehicles on the Pekin policy. Pekin filed a timely notice of appeal.\nThe relevant facts are as follows. Teresa and Frank Goben are the natural parents of Robin Goben. Robin lived with his parents at 345 Wasson Road in Eldorado, Illinois, on March 5, 1997. On that same date, Robin was a passenger in a 1996 Chevrolet Z28 Camaro driven by Craig Goolsby and owned by Cynthia Heil. Goolsby accelerated the vehicle to an excessive rate of speed and, while traveling south on Crossroads School Road approximately one-half mile north of Berlin Road in Saline County, Illinois, lost control of the vehicle, which caused the vehicle to leave the roadway, become airborne on three separate occasions, and strike a utility pole and a large tree before finally coming to rest upside down. As a result of the accident, Robin was ejected from the vehicle and was killed.\nGranite State Insurance Company provided liability insurance coverage to the 1996 Chevrolet Z28 Camaro driven by Goolsby and owned by Heil with bodily injury liability insurance limits of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per occurrence. Granite State Insurance Company has paid to the Estate the $20,000-per-person bodily injury liability limits.\nOn the date of the accident, plaintiff was the insurer for the following:\n\u201cFREEDOM HEATING\nGARY WHITLOCK/FRANK GOBIN [sic] DBA\nRR #3 BOX 144\n345 WASSON ROAD\nELDORADO, IL 62930.\u201d\nTwo vehicles were listed on the declarations page of the Pekin insurance policy, both of which included underinsured-motorist coverage in the amount of $500,000 and, if aggregated together, $1 million, in underinsured-motorist coverage. According to the record, the effective dates for the policy were from December 29, 1996, to June 29, 1997.\nSubsequent to the settlement of the claim with Granite State Insurance Company, the Estate made a demand upon Pekin for arbitration pursuant to the terms of the underinsured-motorist-coverage provisions of the Pekin policy issued to Frank Goben. Pekin denied that underinsured-motorist-coverage benefits were available to the Estate, and Pekin filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the Estate and sought a declaration that Robin did not qualify as an \u201cinsured\u201d under the Pekin policy that was issued to the partnership of Gary Whitlock and Frank Goben, doing business as Freedom Heating & Air Conditioning Company. Pekin maintained that it owed no duty or obligation to provide underinsured-motorist-coverage benefits to the Estate in connection with the motor vehicle accident in which Robin was killed.\nOn January 8, 1998, the Estate filed an answer to the complaint for declaratory judgment and a counterclaim for declaratory judgment. The Estate sought a declaration to the contrary and subsequently amended its counterclaim to allege that, based on the presence of multiple vehicles listed on the Pekin policy, the underinsured-motoristcoverage benefits available under the policy stacked to provide $1 million in underinsured-motorist coverage (count I), that Pekin\u2019s denial of coverage violated the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155 (West 1996)) (count II), and that, alternatively, Pekin\u2019s conduct violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1996)) (count III). On January 15, 1998, the Estate filed a motion for a summary judgment on its amended counterclaim. Pekin then moved to dismiss the Estate\u2019s amended counterclaim and also moved for summary judgment on its original complaint.\nThe trial court dismissed counts II and III and denied Pekin\u2019s motion to dismiss count I of the Estate\u2019s amended counterclaim. The trial court then entered summary judgment in favor of the Estate and against Pekin on March 27, 1998, finding that Robin qualified, as an \u201cinsured\u201d under the Pekin policy and that the underinsured-motoristcoverage benefits stacked to provide $1 million in underinsuredmotorist coverage. Pekin filed a timely notice of appeal.\nAs we previously stated, this appeal was taken from the trial court\u2019s grant of a summary judgment in favor of the Estate and against Pekin. In an appeal from the grant of a summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review. Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill. 2d 384, 390, 620 N.E.2d 1073, 1077 (1993). Although we recognize that summary judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation, it is an appropriate measure in cases where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Crum & Forster Managers Corp., 156 Ill. 2d at 390-91, 620 N.E.2d at 1077.\nThe construction of an insurance policy is a question of law (American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473, 479, 687 N.E.2d 72, 75 (1997)) and is an appropriate subject for disposition by way of a summary judgment. Crum & Forster Managers Corp., 156 Ill. 2d at 391, 620 N.E.2d at 1077. When construing the language of an insurance policy, the court\u2019s primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement. If the terms found within the policy are \u201cclear and unambiguous,\u201d they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. On the other hand, if the terms within the policy are reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, they are considered ambiguous and will be construed strictly against the insurer, which drafted the policy. Provisions that limit or exclude coverage are interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and against the insurer. The court must construe the policy as a whole and consider the type of insurance purchased, the nature of the risks involved, and the overall purpose of the contract. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d at 479, 687 N.E.2d at 75.\nPekin argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that the Pekin policy provided underinsured-motorist coverage to Robin since the Pekin policy was issued to the Company, a partnership, and the Company does not have family members. Hence, Pekin contends that these facts preclude any underinsured-motorist coverage to Robin, Frank Goben\u2019s son.\nThe relevant portions of the Illinois underinsured-motoristscoverage section of the aforementioned policy are as follows:\n\u201cA. COVERAGE\n1. We will pay all sums the \u2018insured\u2019 is legally entitled to recover as compensatory damages from the owner or driver of an \u2018underinsured motor vehicle.\u2019 The damages must result from \u2018bodily injury\u2019 sustained by the \u2018insured\u2019 caused by an \u2018accident.\u2019 The owner\u2019s or driver\u2019s liability for these damages must result from the ownership, maintenance or use of the \u2018underinsured motor vehicle.\u2019\n* * *\nB. WHO IS AN INSURED\n1. You.\n2. If you are an individual, any \u2018family member.\u2019\n* <: i'fi\nF. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS\nThe following are added to the DEFINITIONS Section:\n1. \u2018Family member\u2019 means a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child.\n>:< % >\u00a1;\n5. \u2018Underinsured motor vehicle\u2019 means a land motor vehicle or trailer for which the sum of all liability bonds or policies at the time of an \u2018accident\u2019 provides at least the amounts required by the applicable law where a covered \u2018auto\u2019 is principally garaged but their limits are less than the limit of this coverage.\u201d (Emphasis omitted.)\nPage one of the Pekin policy lists words and phrases with special meaning. The relevant ones are as follows:\n\u201cA. \u2018You\u2019 and \u2018your\u2019 mean the person or organization shown as the named insured in ITEM ONE of the declarations.\nt}4 <: i\\i\nE. \u2018Bodily injury\u2019 means bodily injury, sickness or disease including death resulting from any of these.\n>\u00a14 >\u00a14 i$4\nK. \u2018Family member\u2019 means a person related to you by blood, marriage, or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child.\u201d\nAfter reviewing the preceding language contained within the Pekin policy, it is clear that Robin was insured pursuant to the underinsured-motorist coverage. The definition of \u201cyou\u201d contained in the Pekin policy could reasonably be interpreted as follows: \u201c \u2018You\u2019 and \u2018your\u2019 mean the person [Frank Goben or Gary Whitlock] or organization [Freedom Heating & Air Conditioning] shown as the named insured in ITEM ONE of the declarations.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Item one of the declarations states as follows:\n\u201cFREEDOM HEATING\nGARY WHITLOCK/FRANK GOBIN [sic] DBA\nRR #3 BOX 144\n345 WASSON ROAD\nELDORADO, IL 62930.\u201d\nHence, the listed insureds are Freedom Heating, Gary Wfiiitlock, and Frank Goben. Moreover, Robin was Frank Goben\u2019s biological child, and no one questions that he was a resident of Frank Goben\u2019s home at the time of the accident.\nWe have searched and have found no cases that directly deal with the precise language or set of facts that we have in the instant case. The most similar case that we found was Patrevito v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 118 Ill. App. 3d 573, 455 N.E.2d 289 (1983). In Patrevito, the decedent, owner of Patrevito\u2019s Florist and Greenhouse, was killed by a hit-and-run driver. Patrevito\u2019s Florist and Greenhouse, owned by decedent and his wife, was the named insured on the insurance policy. This court determined that the designation in the policy of Patrevito\u2019s Florist and Greenhouse was merely the name and style under which the decedent and his wife did business. The Patrevito court determined that the decedent was the named insured pursuant to the policy under the name and style of the business that he operated since decedent\u2019s business was not a separate legal entity and did not exist outside of the existence of the decedent. 118 Ill. App. 3d at 575-76, 455 N.E.2d at 291.\nPekin claims that Robin was not an insured for purposes of underinsured-motorist coverage, and Pekin cites Polzin v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Cos., 5 Ill. App. 3d 84, 283 N.E.2d 324 (1972), and Economy Preferred Insurance Co. v. Jersey County Construction, Inc., 246 Ill. App. 3d 387, 615 N.E.2d 1290 (1993), to support its argument. These cases are distinguishable, however, from the case at bar.\nIn Polzin, the insurance policy was issued to \u201cA.B.C. Lithoplate & Graining Services, Inc.,\u201d and only the corporation was listed as the insured. The policy had an endorsement providing family-protection coverage for uninsured or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage. Polzin, who was president, chief executive officer, and owner of 50% of the corporation\u2019s stock, was standing on a corner and was injured when he was struck by an uninsured automobile. Polzin served the insurance company with notice, claiming that he was covered by the uninsured-motorist endorsement on the policy issued to the corporation. The insurance company denied coverage. The circuit court entered judgment for the insurance company. On appeal, this court determined that the uninsured-motorist provisions of the policy issued only to the corporation insured the corporation and any person using its automobiles. This court stated that since Polzin was not a named insured and was not using one of its vehicles at the time of the accident, he had no coverage rights under the endorsement.\nLikewise, in Jersey County Construction, Inc., Nelson Miller purchased insurance for Jersey County Construction, Inc., and the policy was issued in the corporation\u2019s name only. Miller\u2019s daughter was injured while she was a passenger on an uninsured motorcycle operated by an uninsured motorist, and Miller claimed that the daughter\u2019s accident was covered by the uninsured-motorist provisions in the policy issued to the corporation. The circuit court granted Miller\u2019s motion for summary judgment and denied the insurance company\u2019s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, this court held that the reference in the corporation\u2019s insurance policy to \u201cfamily members\u201d was a nullity since corporations do not have family members. Hence, the policy was not ambiguous, and Miller\u2019s daughter was not covered for injuries that she sustained while a passenger on an uninsured motorcycle operated by an uninsured motorist.\nThe case at bar is distinguishable from Polzin and Jersey County Construction, Inc., because the insurance policies in those cases were issued only to a corporation and listed only the corporation as the insured. A corporation has a legal existence separate from that of its shareholders, officers, and directors. The instant case, like the Patrevito case, however, involves a partnership between two people, Whit-lock and Goben. The partnership has no legal existence outside of those two people. In fact, pursuant to Illinois law, a partnership is not a separate and distinct legal entity for most purposes. See Heinze v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 288 Ill. 342, 346, 123 N.E. 598, 600 (1919); Abbott v. Anderson, 265 Ill. 285, 290, 106 N.E. 782, 784 (1914). But a partnership may be sued in the names of the partners as individuals doing business as the partnership or in the firm name, or both. Any unsatisfied judgments against the partnership may be satisfied in an action to enforce the individual liability of a partner. 735 ILCS 5/2\u2014411 (West 1996).\n\u201cThe designation \u2018d/b/a\u2019 means \u2018doing business as\u2019 but is merely descriptive of the person or corporation who does business under some other name. Doing business under another name does not create an entity distinct from the person operating the business.\u201d Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 1381, 1387 (D. Neb. 1977), aff\u2019d, 578 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1978).\nIt is of great significance that in Polzin and Jersey County Construction, Inc., the insurance policy was issued only to a corporation and that the corporation was the only named insured. In the instant case, the insurance policy lists the named insureds as \u201cFREEDOM HEATINGL,] GARY WHITLOCK/FRANK GOBEN DBA.\u201d If Pekin did not intend for Whitlock and Goben to also be listed as insureds, Pekin should not have listed their names as insureds when it drafted the insurance policy.\nBecause Goben was listed as an insured, which under the Pekin policy insured any of Goben\u2019s family members in the event that they were injured or killed by an owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle, it is clear that Robin, as Frank\u2019s son, was also insured and covered under the terms of the Pekin policy.\nNext, Pekin claims that the trial court erred in finding that the antistacking provision contained in the Pekin policy is ambiguous and in allowing the Estate to stack the underinsured-motorist coverage available for the Goben claim.\nThe touchstone when determining whether an ambiguity exists regarding an insurance policy is whether the relevant portion is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, not whether creative possibilities can be suggested. \u201cReasonableness is the key.\u201d Bruder v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 156 Ill. 2d 179, 193, 620 N.E.2d 355, 362 (1993).\nThe underinsured-motorists-coverage endorsement of the Pekin policy discusses the limits of the policy as follows:\n\u201cD. LIMIT OF INSURANCE\n1. Regardless of the number of covered \u2018autos,\u2019 \u2018insureds,\u2019 premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the \u2018accident,\u2019 the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one \u2018accident\u2019 is the Limit of Insurance for UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE shown in this endorsement.\u201d\nAlthough no limit of liability is included in this endorsement, there is printed below the area where a limit of coverage would appear the following language: \u201cIf no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.\u201d The declarations page sets forth two separate vehicles, a 1988 Dodge half-ton pickup truck, designated as \u201cUnit 1,\u201d and a 1994 Chevrolet Silverado truck, designated as \u201cUnit 2.\u201d The pertinent portion of the declarations page is set forth below:\n\u201cTHIS POLICY PROVIDES THOSE COVERAGES WHERE A CHARGE IS SHOWN IN PREMIUM COLUMN BELOW\nCOVERAGES UNIT 001 UNIT 002 UNIT\n$ LIMITS PREMIUM $ LIMITS PREMIUM $ LIMITS PREMIUM\nBODILY INJURY LIABILITY 500/500 59.00 500/500 59.00 500/500 18.00\nEACH PERSON ($1000 UNITS)\nEACH ACCIDENT ($1000 UNITS)\nPROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY 500,000 55.00 500,000 55.00 500,000 5.00\nEACH ACCIDENT\nMEDICAL PAYMENTS 2,000 7.00 2,000 7.00\nEACH PERSON\nUNINSURED MOTORIST 500/500 8.00 500/500 18.00 ($1000 UNITS)\nEACH PERSON, EACH ACCIDENT\n(INCLUDES UNDERINSURED MOTORIST)\nCOMPREHENSIVE 200 25.00 200 44.00\nACTUAL CASH VALUE LESS DEDUCTIBLE (INCLUDES TOWING & LABOR)\nCOLLISION 200 71.00 200 125.00\nACTUAL CASH VALUE LESS DEDUCTIBLE\nWe note that there are two separate vertical columns for each vehicle. One vertical column sets forth the limit of coverage, and the other vertical column sets forth the premium paid for that coverage. The underinsured motorist coverage is $500,000 for each vehicle, and the premium paid for underinsured-motorist coverage for each vehicle was $18. Each of these amounts is set forth twice, once for Unit 1 and once for Unit 2.\nWhen the antistacking clause is read together with the language in the endorsement that refers the reader to the declarations page to obtain the limits of coverage, the ambiguity with respect to the amount of underinsured-motorist coverage becomes apparent. We will explain.\nThere are two underinsured-motorist coverages set forth, each in the amount of $500,000. One interpretation of this could be that the insured has $500,000 in underinsured-motorist coverage available from Unit 1 and an additional $500,000 in underinsured-motorist coverage available from Unit 2, for a total of $1 million in underinsured-motorist coverage. Another interpretation might be that the insured has only $500,000 in underinsured-motorist coverage, the coverage set forth under either Unit 1 or Unit 2.\nIn Bruder, 156 Ill. 2d 179, 620 N.E.2d 355, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a plaintiff should be allowed to stack underinsured-motorist coverage on two vehicles set forth on a single business automobile policy. The court reviewed and focused on the declarations page of the insurance policy and the method used by the insurer to set forth its limit of underinsured-motorist coverage. The Bruder court held, however, that when the antistacking clause was read together with the declarations page, it was unambiguous because the limit of underinsured-motorist coverage was set forth only one time on the declarations page. The Bruder court\u2019s decision hinged on the fact that the underinsured-motorist coverage limit was set forth only once on the declarations page, instead of two times, as in the instant case. The Bruder court even discussed a case like ours, where the underinsured-motorist coverage is set forth two times on the declarations page, once adjacent to each insured vehicle. The court stated: \u201cThere would be little to suggest in such a listing that the parties intended that coverage was to be limited to that provided for only one of the two pickup trucks. It would be more reasonable to assume that the parties intended that, in return for the two premiums, two *** coverage amounts were afforded.\u201d Bruder, 156 Ill. 2d at 192, 620 N.E.2d at 362; see also Squire v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 69 Ill. 2d 167, 179-80, 370 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (1977) (court held that the existence of two declarations pages, both setting $10,000 limits for liability for each person, created an ambiguity permitting the aggregation of those coverage amounts); see also Allen v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 128 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1997) (court held that antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles on the declarations page with separate coverages and separate premiums listed for each vehicle).\nPekin claims that the quoted language from the Bruder decision is merely dictum and should not be cited as precedent. We disagree. First, the language from the Bruder decision was central to the court\u2019s rationale for why the insurance policy at issue in Bruder was not ambiguous. The Illinois Supreme Court has explained that dictum is generally used as an abbreviation of obiter dictum, which means a remark or opinion uttered by the way. Expressions such as these are not binding as authority or precedent within the stare decisis rule. An expression of opinion upon a point in a case argued by counsel and deliberately passed upon by the court, though not essential to the disposition of the cause if dictum, is a judicial dictum. Judicial dictum is entitled to much weight and should be followed unless found to be erroneous. See Law v. Grommes, 158 Ill. 492, 494, 41 N.E. 1080 (1895); Rhoads v. Chicago & Alton R.R. Co., 227 Ill. 328, 337, 81 N.E. 371, 374 (1907) (expression of opinion considered to be judicial dictum held to have force of judicial determination). \u201cEven obiter dictum of a court of last resort can be tantamount to a decision and therefore binding in the absence of a contrary decision of that court.\u201d Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill. 2d 76, 80, 619 N.E.2d 715, 717 (1993).\nIn any event, whether the quoted passage is viewed as dictum or not, we agree with it. We believe that it is a correct and reasonable statement of the law and hereby adopt it.\nIn the case at bar, since there are two possible interpretations of the Pekin policy, we must construe the policy strictly against Pekin, the party that drafted the policy, and we find that $1 million in underinsured-motorist coverage is available.\nIn light of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s decision.\nAffirmed.\nWELCH and HOPKINS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE MAAG" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Marc Chemers and Patrick G. Cooke, both of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Thomas J. Foster, of Jelliffe, Ferrell, Morris, Doerge & Foster, of Harrisburg, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTATE OF ROBIN M. GOBEN, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201498\u20140189\nOpinion filed March 9, 1999.\nRobert Marc Chemers and Patrick G. Cooke, both of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, of Chicago, for appellant.\nThomas J. Foster, of Jelliffe, Ferrell, Morris, Doerge & Foster, of Harrisburg, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0639-01", "first_page_order": 657, "last_page_order": 667 }