Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Smith

Appellate Court of Illinois
787 N.E.2d 852 (2003)


Facts

While driving his father’s car, William Smith (defendant) collided with William and Audrey Hardwidge, killing himself and the Hardwidges. Smith had an automobile-insurance policy with Valor Insurance Company (Valor). Smith’s parents had an automobile-insurance policy with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) (plaintiff). Although Smith’s parents named Smith as an insured under this policy, when St. Paul learned that Smith had been convicted of drunk driving and had his license revoked, St. Paul removed Smith from Smith’s parents’ policy. St. Paul then made Smith’s parents sign a named-driver exclusion excluding liability for any accidents occurring while Smith was driving. The estates of the Hardwidges sued Smith’s father and Smith’s estate (defendants). The defendants tendered their defense to Valor. A $5 million verdict was entered against the defendants. St. Paul filed a declaratory judgment action against the defendants seeking a pronouncement that St. Paul was not required to defend the defendants. Valor was given leave to intervene in this lawsuit. St. Paul moved for summary judgment because, it claimed, the named-driver exclusion barred coverage to the defendants. The defendants and Valor each moved for summary judgment claiming that the named-driver exclusion violated public policy, namely § 7-601(a) of the mandatory-insurance provision of the Illinois Vehicle Code. This provision requires an automobile-liability policy to insure either the named insured or a person driving the named insured’s car with the named insured’s permission. Since statutes are an expression of public policy, an insurance policy provision that conflicts with a statute is void as against public policy. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. St. Paul appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Theis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 250,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.