Allstate Insurance v. Pruitt
532 N.E.2d 401, 126 Ill. Dec. 716, 177 Ill. App. 3d 407 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a homeowner's insurance policy contains a motor vehicle exclusion clause, claims for negligent parental supervision are also excluded from coverage if the liability for supervision is entirely dependent on the child's use of the excluded vehicle.
Facts:
- Roy Pruitt, Jr., a minor, was operating a minibike.
- The minibike was owned by either Pruitt Jr. or his father, Roy Pruitt, Sr.
- While driving the minibike, Pruitt Jr. struck and injured Michael Anderson, who was walking.
- The collision occurred in an unincorporated, wooded area that was not part of the Pruitts' residence premises.
- Pruitt Sr. held a homeowner's insurance policy with Allstate Insurance Co.
- The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury 'arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any motorized land vehicle' owned by an insured person and used off the residence premises.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Anderson filed a personal injury lawsuit against Roy Pruitt, Jr. and Roy Pruitt, Sr. in an Illinois state trial court.
- Allstate Insurance Co. then filed a separate declaratory judgment action in the trial court against the Pruitts and Anderson, seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Pruitts.
- Allstate moved for summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate.
- The Pruitts and Anderson, as defendants in the declaratory action, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowner's insurance policy's motor vehicle exclusion clause preclude coverage for a claim of negligent parental supervision when the underlying injury was caused by the minor's operation of the excluded motor vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McMorrow
Yes. A homeowner's policy containing a motor vehicle exclusion clause precludes coverage for a negligent supervision claim that is not independent of the excluded vehicle's use. The court reasoned that Pruitt Sr.'s potential liability for negligent supervision is not a separate and distinct cause of the injury; rather, it is completely dependent on his son's negligent operation of the minibike. Since the son's conduct—the use of the minibike off the insured premises—is the very activity the policy's exclusion clause was designed to remove from coverage, any claim derivative of that conduct, including negligent supervision, is also excluded. The court distinguished this case from precedents like USF&G, where a daycare's general duty to supervise children was found to be independent of the operation of a vehicle. Here, the alleged negligence of the father is inextricably linked to the excluded instrumentality, meaning the exclusion must prevail.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that parties cannot circumvent a clear policy exclusion through artful pleading. By rejecting the argument that negligent supervision constitutes an independent, covered act, the court reinforces the principle that coverage is determined by the fundamental cause of the injury, not the legal theory used to assert liability. This holding significantly limits an insurer's duty to defend in cases where a covered theory of liability, such as negligent supervision, is wholly dependent on an explicitly excluded risk, such as the use of a motor vehicle. It sets a precedent that requires a genuine, independent non-vehicle-related act of negligence for coverage to exist when a vehicle is involved in the injury.
Unlock the full brief for Allstate Insurance v. Pruitt