ORDER ¶ 1 Held: Summary judgment properly granted in favor of Illinois National where: (1) the unambiguous exclusion of workers compensation liability from the municipality's Special Excess insurance policy did not violate public policy; (2) workers compensation benefits paid to plaintiff were properly excluded in determining municipality's retained limit responsibility under UIM endorsement of Special Excess policy; (3) the holding of Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, applied where plaintiff had already received amounts beyond the statutorily mandated minimums and is able to recover additional amounts for categories of loss not covered by workers compensation. ¶ 2 Plaintiff, Kadin Mahmet, filed a declaratory judgment action against defendants, Illinois National Insurance Company (Illinois National), the City of Calumet City (Calumet City) and his personal insurer, American Access Insurance Company (American Access). Illinois National insured Calumet City (the insured) under a Special Excess Liability Policy for Public Entities (Special Excess Policy).

Pekin Insurance Co. v. Precision Dose, Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110195, ¶ 31, 360 Ill.Dec. 171, 968 N.E.2d 664. Unambiguous words are given their plain, ordinary, and popular meanings; and we will narrowly read a policy provision purporting to exclude or limit coverage, applying such a provision only where its terms are clear, definite, and specific. Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, ¶ 11, 356 Ill.Dec. 357, 961 N.E.2d 453. An ambiguous policy provision will be construed liberally in favor of coverage. Id. (citing Founders Insurance Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill.2d 424, 433, 341 Ill.Dec. 485, 930 N.E.2d 999 (2010)).

¶ 10 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits show that there is no issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2014); Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102 (1992). Our review of the trial court's grant of summary judgment is de novo. Also, the construction of an insurance policy is a question of law, which we review de novo. Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, ¶ 10. ¶ 11 We construe an insurance policy by ascertaining and giving effect to the parties' intent, as expressed in the policy language. West American Insurance Co. v. Yorkville National Bank, 238 Ill. 2d 177, 184 (2010).

We disagree. ¶ 20 An insurance policy is construed by ascertaining and giving effect to the parties' intent as expressed in the policy language. Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, ¶ 11, 961 N.E.2d 453. A policy provision purporting to exclude or limit coverage is to be read narrowly and applies only where its terms are clear, definite, and specific. Gillen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 215 Ill. 2d 381, 393, 830 N.E.2d 575, 582 (2005).

Pekin Insurance Co. v. Recision Dose, Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110195, ¶ 31. Unambiguous words are given their plain, ordinary, and popular meanings; and we will narrowly read a policy provision purporting to exclude or limit coverage, applying such a provision only where its terms are clear, definite, and specific. Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, ¶ 11. An ambiguous policy provision will be construed liberally in favor of coverage. Id. (citing Founders Insurance Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill. 2d 424, 433 (2010)). ¶ 16 In this case, Country Mutual had a duty to defend the Doyles in the federal lawsuit pursuant to the policy's "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision.

Curtis Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance CompanyLower Court: 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, 356 Ill.Dec. 357, 961 N.E.2d 453 Disposition: Denied.

Importantly, the purpose of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is to put the insured person in the same position as he or she would occupy if the at-fault driver had carried liability coverage in the same amount as stated in the insurance policy. See Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192, ¶ 31 (quoting Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, ¶ 31). ¶ 16 Due to the simplicity of the issue presented in this appeal, the required analysis is quite brief and straightforward.

We must interpret a contract to give effect to all of its provisions and not interpret it so as to nullify any of its provisions or render them meaningless. Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035, ¶ 41. ¶ 42 III. CONCLUSION