State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elmore

2019 IL App (5th) 180038 (Ill. App., 2019)

Words & Phrases

Duty To Defend: Use of Mechanical Device

Trial Judge

Allan F. Lolie

Appellate Judge

Cates

Holding

Grain auger did not constitute a mechanical device.

Fact Summary

Defendant Kent Elmore was severely injured while unloading a grain truck which was owned by his father, Ardith Sheldon Elmore (Sheldon), and insured by plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Kent filed a claim seeking damages for his injuries under Sheldon’s State Farm auto policy. State Farm then filed this action, seeking a judgment declaring that the “mechanical device” exclusion in the auto policy was applicable and barred coverage for Kent’s injuries. State Farm and Kent filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court found that the “mechanical device” exclusion was unambiguous and enforceable, and entered a summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Kent now appeals.

On appeal, Kent contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment and granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment because the “mechanical device” exclusion in the State Farm auto policy was ambiguous and contrary to the purpose of the mandatory motor vehicle liability laws of Illinois. For reasons that follow, we reverse the order of the circuit court entering a summary judgment for State Farm and denying Kent’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), we enter a summary judgment in favor of defendant, Kent Elmore.

The auger in this case was not self- powered or motorized. Standing alone, the auger was simply a large cylindrical structure with metal helical blades. The auger had no ability to turn and move grain without an external power source, and its blades turned only if attached to the tractor’s PTO shaft. Even then, the auger would not work effectively to pull the grain unless the RPMs of the tractor were increased, depending on the weight of the grain in the hopper. Thus, we find that the cases cited by State Farm are factually distinguishable.

Back