Galarza v. Direct Auto Insurance Company
2023 IL 129031 (IL. 2023)Words & Phrases
Uninsured Motorist Coverage: Definitions OccupyingTrial Judge
Sophia H. HallAppellate Judge
Holder WhiteHolding
Supreme Court finds UM coverage for bicyclist and voids "occupying" requirement.Fact Summary
Appellees, Fredy Guiracocha and Cristopher Guiracocha, a minor by next best friend of his father, Fredy, filed an uninsured motorist (UM) claim against appellant, Direct Auto Insurance Company (Direct Auto), stemming from a hit-and-run incident where 14-year-old Cristopher was allegedly struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle. The Guiracochas asserted Fredy was the named insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Direct Auto and thus UM coverage applied to Cristopher based on his status as a “relative” under the policy. Direct Auto denied Cristopher coverage because Cristopher was not an occupant of a covered vehicle at the time of the accident.
Direct Auto filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and subsequently a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing on Direct Auto’s motion, the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Direct Auto.
The appellate court, Judge Gordon, determined the sole issue on appeal was “whether a provision in an automobile insurance policy that limits uninsured motorist coverage to insureds occupying an ‘insured automobile’ violates section 143a of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143a (West 2020))—which addresses uninsured and hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage (UM or UM coverage)—and is thus unenforceable against public policy.” 2022 IL App (1st) 211595, ¶ 1, 463 Ill.Dec. 291, 209 N.E.3d 409. The court reversed and remanded. Id. ¶ 56. For the following reasons, we affirm the appellate court’s judgment and reverse the judgment of the circuit court.