(DOWNLOAD) "Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co." by Supreme Court of Illinois * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Illinois
- Release Date : January 29, 1970
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 75 KB
Description
Plaintiffs, while passengers in a car owned by a friend, John J. Porchivina, and driven by Mrs. Porchivina, were injured in
1961 in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The Porchivinas were the owners of an insurance policy with
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, and plaintiffs, as passengers in the Porchivina car, were also covered as
insureds under the policy. The plaintiffs, another passenger and the Porchivinas all made claims under the uninsured motorist
provision of the Hartford policy, which limited coverage to $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident. The $20,000 limit
was exhausted, with plaintiffs recovering $7,500 as their apportioned share. The plaintiffs then instituted the present action
under the uninsured motorist provision of their own insurance policy with defendant, New Amsterdam Casualty Company, seeking
compensation to the extent their damages exceeded the $7,500 recovered from Hartford. In a bench trial, the circuit court
of Cook County found that New Amsterdam was not liable under the terms of its policy with plaintiffs. On appeal to the Appellate
Court for the First District, the judgment for defendant was affirmed. (110 Ill. App.2d 103.) We granted leave to appeal. New Amsterdam successfully urged below that under the express conditions of its policy with plaintiffs, the availability
of other insurance, i.e., the hosts' (the Porchivinas) policy with Hartford, relieved defendant from liability when its insured
was injured in a car he did not own, except to the extent its policy limits exceeded the limits provided on the other insurance.
Since both policies had the same limits of $10,000/$20,000, no "excess" coverage was provided. Plaintiffs object to this construction,
arguing that since the Hartford insurance was not collectible by them to the full policy limits, it was not "available" so
as to relieve New Amsterdam under the policy's "other insurance" provisions. They also contend that the "other insurance"
provisions of the New Amsterdam policy should not be given effect, since, as the parties stipulated, identical provisions
were contained in the Hartford policy; thus there is alleged to be a conflict as to which policy's "other insurance" provisions
control, and plaintiffs suggest that equity requires us to disregard the provisions in both policies. The provisions which
control the uninsured motorist coverage of the two policies are as follows:
 "Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co." by Supreme Court of Illinois * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}