Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; August 11, 1992; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Insurance Company of Illinois (ICI) initiated a lawsuit against Safeway Insurance Company (Safeway) for contribution following an arbitrator’s award of $6,400 in favor of Thomas Vaughn, a minor injured by an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, Thomas was covered by both ICI, under Linford's policy, and Safeway, under Lucille's policy. Thomas demanded arbitration against both insurers but later withdrew his claim against Safeway. ICI sought contribution for half of the award and attorney fees, arguing that Safeway’s policy also covered Thomas, thus entitling ICI to a proportional reimbursement.
The trial court ruled in favor of ICI, stating that ICI's entitlement to contribution arose upon Thomas's withdrawal of his claim against Safeway. It ordered Safeway to pay a prorated share of the award but denied ICI's request for attorney fees. Safeway contended that ICI could not enforce its policy with Lucille and that there was insufficient evidence to prove Thomas resided with Lucille, a necessary factor for coverage under Safeway's policy. ICI, however, maintained that its payment to Thomas benefited Safeway, as the award compensated for injuries that could have been covered by Safeway. The court noted that for contribution to be valid, ICI must prove all facts necessary for Thomas's claim against Safeway, which ICI failed to do, as no evidence was provided to establish Thomas's residency with Lucille.
ICI failed to provide evidence that Thomas was covered by Safeway’s insurance policy or that Safeway owed any payment to him. The applicable policy conditions require written proof under oath for claims under the uninsured motorist provision, which neither Thomas nor Lucille submitted. Consequently, Safeway had no obligation to pay or arbitrate the claim. The trial court could not conclude that ICI met its burden of proof for summary judgment due to the lack of evidence showing the Vaughns fulfilled the necessary conditions for recovery. Safeway argued that Lucille, Linford, and Thomas were necessary parties, as their absence could materially affect the judgment and interests involved in the case. The trial court ordered Safeway to pay ICI based on its policy with Lucille, but since Lucille and Thomas were not parties to the action, ICI's recovery should not prevent them from bringing their claims against Safeway. Safeway requested judgment in its favor, asserting that ICI could not seek contribution since the two policies did not cover the same parties or interests. ICI claimed both policies provided uninsured motorist coverage for Thomas, and the overlap of coverage implies identical insurable interests. Therefore, ICI could potentially recover contribution from Safeway if it included Lucille and Thomas in the lawsuit and established that Thomas was indeed covered under both policies. The summary judgment in favor of ICI was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
