Finch v. Central Nat. Ins. Group of Omaha

Illinois Supreme Court

Finch v. Central Nat. Ins. Group of Omaha

319 N.E.2d 468, 59 Ill. 2d 123, 1974 Ill. LEXIS 265

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1974

Docket46647

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 319 N.E.2d 468 (Finch v. Central Nat. Ins. Group of Omaha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Finch v. Central Nat. Ins. Group of Omaha, 319 N.E.2d 468, 59 Ill. 2d 123, 1974 Ill. LEXIS 265 (Ill. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, James J. Finch, brought this action in the circuit court of Rock Island County against the defendant, The Central National Insurance Group of Omaha, seeking to recover damages under the uninsured-motorist clause in an insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had suffered injuries when a westbound automobile driven by Guadalupe Narvaez, which had been forced to cross the center line of a street in the city of Moline by a vehicle negligently driven by an unidentified driver, struck the motorcycle which the plaintiff was riding in an easterly direction. The unidentified driver had continued on, leaving the scene of the accident.

The complaint did not allege that there had been any physical contact between the vehicle driven by the unidentified driver and the vehicle driven by Narvaez or the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that the insurance policy issued to the plaintiff limited hit-and-run automobile coverage to accidents in which such physical contact had taken place.

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed. (17 Ill. App. 3d 822 (1974).) We granted leave to appeal.

In Ferega v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1974), 58 Ill.2d 109, the precise issue involved in the present case was resolved adversely to the plaintiff’s position. There it was held that physical contact between the vehicle of the insured and that of the hit-and-run driver was required under the insurance policy and that the inclusion of a provision to that effect was valid under section 143a of the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 73, par. 755a). Our decision in Ferega is controlling here.

The judgment of the appellate court is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, James J. Finch, brought this action in the circuit court of Rock Island County against the defendant, The Central National Insurance Group of Omaha, seeking to recover damages under the uninsured-motorist clause in an insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had suffered injuries when a westbound automobile driven by Guadalupe Narvaez, which had been forced to cross the center line of a street in the city of Moline by a vehicle negligently driven by an unidentified driver, struck the motorcycle which the plaintiff was riding in an easterly direction. The unidentified driver had continued on, leaving the scene of the accident.

The complaint did not allege that there had been any physical contact between the vehicle driven by the unidentified driver and the vehicle driven by Narvaez or the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that the insurance policy issued to the plaintiff limited hit-and-run automobile coverage to accidents in which such physical contact had taken place.

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed. (17 Ill. App. 3d 822 (1974).) We granted leave to appeal.

In Ferega v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1974), 58 Ill.2d 109, the precise issue involved in the present case was resolved adversely to the plaintiff’s position. There it was held that physical contact between the vehicle of the insured and that of the hit-and-run driver was required under the insurance policy and that the inclusion of a provision to that effect was valid under section 143a of the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 73, par. 755a). Our decision in Ferega is controlling here.

The judgment of the appellate court is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 N.E.2d 468, 59 Ill. 2d 123, 1974 Ill. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finch-v-central-nat-ins-group-of-omaha-ill-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack