MOUNT VERNON – Supreme Court candidate Judy Cates concurred in a decision that favored a client of Lanny Darr after he gave her campaign $2,000.
Darr contributed $1,000 to Judge Judy for Supreme Court on Oct. 10 and 15, and Fifth District appellate judges issued the decision on Oct. 22.
A three-judge panel found Madison County Circuit Judge Sarah Smith incorrectly resolved ambiguities in an automobile policy in favor of Viking Insurance.
The justices found Smith should have resolved them in favor of Darr’s clients, father Kent Strowmatt and son Bradley.
Justice Thomas Welch delivered the decision as a binding opinion, with Cates and Justice Milton Wharton concurring.
Bradley suffered injuries in a crash in 2017, riding with a driver who caused it and lacked insurance.
Kent ran up a medical bill of $13,296 and submitted it to Viking under his policy.
Viking denied the claim, asserting that Kent’s policy didn’t cover Bradley.
Darr sued Viking in 2018.
Viking filed a counter claim for judgment that Kent was the only named insured on the policy declarations sheet.
Viking relied on a “named non owner endorsement,” but Darr claimed it conflicted with other definitions in the policy that favored family members.
Darr claimed the record didn’t support a finding that Viking advised Kent of the endorsement or that he understood or accepted it.
Viking claimed Kent purchased a policy that insured him exclusively and if he didn’t intend to, he was obligated to bring it to Viking’s attention.
Smith granted judgment to Viking last year, conceding that a contract with four definitions of the insured person appeared ambiguous.
“If there is any ambiguity between the policy and the endorsement, the endorsement will control,” Smith wrote.
Darr moved to vacate the order and Smith denied it.
Fifth District judges explored the ambiguities and came out on the other side.
“When interpreting insurance policies, the agreement is to be enforced as written so long as it is unambiguous and only to the extent that it does not contravene public policy,” Welch wrote.
He wrote that terms susceptible to more than one meaning are construed strictly against the insurer who drafted the policy.
He also wrote that the record contained no information as to whether Kent understood or accepted the limiting language.
“Any cause of action to recover the medical expenses is that of the parents, and if the parents are not entitled to recover, then neither is the child,” he wrote.
He wrote that Kent was obligated to pay medical expenses and the claim for injury to Bradley was for Kent’s own loss.
The appellate judges remanded the dispute to Smith for further proceedings.
Michael Bedesky of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville represented Viking.