The Definition of An Insured for Purposes of UIM Coverage Should Not Be More Restrictive Than the Liability Coverage
In Cohs v. Western States Insurance Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d 930, 769 N.E.2d 1038, 264 Ill. Dec. 201 (2002), this court held that the use of the term "occupying" in defining who qualifies as an insured for purposes of UIM coverage was not unduly restrictive even though the definition of an insured for purposes of liability coverage was broader. Cohs, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 936-37, 769 N.E.2d 1044-45.
The UIM section defined an "insured" as "'anyone else "occupying" a covered "auto" or a temporary substitute for a covered "auto."'" Cohs, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 932, 769 N.E.2d 1041.
The plaintiff in Cohs contended that because section 143a-2(1) requires liability and UIM coverage amounts to be equal, the definition of an insured for purposes of UIM coverage should not be more restrictive than the definition for liability coverage, and argued that coverage should be extended to anyone "using" the covered auto. Cohs, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 936-37, 769 N.E.2d 1044-45.