Progressive Insurance Limits in Illinois Motorcycle Accident Case Ruled On By Appellate Court
While it is somewhat common for two vehicles involved in an Illinois car accident to be covered by the same insurance company, it is very rare that both those vehicles are covered under the same insurance policy. In Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois v. Kocher, No. 5-07-0468, both vehicles involved in an Illinois motorcycle accident were owned by the same family and covered on the same insurance policy. The case was brought to the Illinois Appellate Court to help shed light on what to do in these unusual circumstances.
The Illinois auto accident occurred when Nick Kocher's motorcycle collided with his father's ATV. Luke Kocher was a passenger on the ATV at the time of the crash and sustained severe head injuries. Luke required a lengthy hospitalization and recovery, which resulted in a large amount of medical bills.
The Kocher family turned to Progressive Insurance Company of Illinois, their auto insurer, for payment of the bills that were a result of the motorcycle accident. Both the motorcycle and ATV were insured on the same policy, along with a third vehicle. The policy coverage included limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 total for each vehicle.
The facts of the case involved a union carpenter who suffered serious injuries to his head, neck, and back when he fell on his head en route to the hospital after suffering heatstroke on the job. Over the next two years, the Illinois carpenter was unable to return to his normal duties at Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. During this period he fluctuated between not working at all and times of working light duty per his doctor's instructions. 
Starting in the 1990s insurance companies began taking advantage of baby boomers by scooping up thousands of individual long-term care insurance policies. It seems that the expectation by the insurance companies was that the buyers would eventually give up paying the annual premiums and close out the files by taking the collected premium. 
It had been argued that Zurich should be obligated to provide co-primary insurance coverage because it issued a trucker’s insurance policy to Rose Services. Zurich argued that coverage was barred because a reciprocal coverage provision in its policy meant that unless it provided coverage to Franklin, Zurich was not obligated to provide coverage to Key. 
Based on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 182 Ill.2d 240 (1998), the First District Court reversed a ruling for 
Michael Hadrys, an Adjustable Forms employee, was injured while working on a construction project in Illinois called the River East Project. And as is typical in the construction industry, his insurance was an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) meaning that it was covered through the owner of the job and not his direct employer. The OCIP was being covered by Reliance Insurance Co., who have since folded, and that's when things get complicated.
State Farm insured the vehicle that was damaged and filed suit against Pat Santucci for property damage only. Santucci was part owner of P.S. Coyote, a corporation that operated out of Santucci's Illinois property, where he also individually owned the horses, outbuildings and barn involved in the accident. Statewide covered P.S. Coyote and Santucci under a commercial general liability policy.
Plaintiff Galvan was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago by ambulance after being injured in an automobile accident. Upon his discharge 15 days later he was presented with a hospital bill for $87,033. In his claim against Northwestern he alleged that their practice of billing uninsured patients twice the amount of insured patients was unfair and deceptive.
The statute seeks to protect construction parties from having to defend against stale claims. Since its inception the statute has been a balancing act between the rights of the injured party and the rights of the party responsible for the construction. Illinois courts generally have limited the statute to apply to claims of construction or improvement to real property. However, where some courts differ is on claims brought as to duties of maintenance and inspection.
