Erie Insurance Exchange v. Aral Construction Corporation
2022 IL App (1st) 210628 (Ill. App., 2022)Words & Phrases
Exclusions: Automobile UseTrial Judge
Moshe JacobiusAppellate Judge
SmithHolding
“Use of an Auto exclusion” applied based on allegations in underlying complaint that plaintiff was acting in her capacity as the sole executive officer and employee of the corporate policyholder.Fact Summary
This cause arises from a declaratory judgment action (735 ILCS 5/2-701 (West 2020)) filed
by the plaintiff-appellee, Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie), against the defendants, Aral Construction Company (Aral) and Arunas Alasevicius, and the defendant-appellant, Dragana Petrovic, seeking a declaration that Erie was not obligated to defend or indemnify Aral or Alasevicius in the underlying negligence claim brought by Petrovic. In that underlying negligence claim, Petrovic alleged that she sustained personal injuries and property damage when a truck driven by Alasevicius struck her open car door as she was exiting her parked car and knocked her unconscious. Petrovic further alleged that Aral owned or operated the truck that struck her and that Alasevicius was acting in the scope of his employment with Aral at the time of the accident. Both Aral and Alasevicius were insured under a commercial general liability policy with Erie (the insurance policy) at that time. After receiving notice of the underlying negligence claim, Erie filed the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to indemnify or defend Aral or Alasevicius. Specifically, Erie claimed (1) that Alasevicius failed to provide it with proper notice of the accident and (2) that coverage was barred under the “auto exclusion” provision of the insurance policy.
After discovery, Petrovic and Erie filed cross-motions for summary judgment seeking a declaration regarding Erie’s duty to defend Aral and Alasevicius. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Erie and against Petrovic. On appeal, Petrovic seeks reversal of the circuit court’s order arguing that (1) Alasevicius provided Erie with sufficient notice of the accident and (2) the “auto exclusion” provision of the insurance policy did not bar coverage since, at the time of the accident, Alasevicius was not acting as an employee of Aral but rather as its executive. For the following reasons, we affirm.