Issue: Vernon A. Sowinski was injured in an accident on October 12, 1965, involving the insured, Mr. Ramey. On December 13, 1965, Mr. Bieg notified Mr. Ramey by letter that he and William Moore were being retained as attorneys by Miss Sowinski, and that Mr. Ramey should notify his insurance company. Shortly thereafter, the attorneys received a memorandum from Jessie Walker, an agent of the company insuring Mr. Ramey, acknowledging receipt of the letter of December 13th and sating that the letter would be forwarded to the company. In July, 1967, Mr. Bieg wrote the company that a summons and complaint had been served upon the Secretary of Illinois since they could not locate Mr. Ramey. Various other communication between the law office and the company, and with the adjustment company, were introduced. Judgment by default was entered against Ramey on October 8, 1970, and this action followed to collect from his insurance company, which denied liability on the grounds of failure to cooperate.

Judgment: The injured person contended that the defense of non-cooperation should have been established before, and that the company failed to prove such defense at the garnishment hearing.

The policy issued to Mr. Ramey provided that, in the event of an accident, written notice giving all information available should be given to the company as soon as practicable, and further provided that the insured would cooperate with the company.

The company denied liability on the ground that Mr. Ramey had failed to give notice of the accident and to participate in the legal action brought against him. In this case, it was shown that Mr. Ramey forwarded to the insurance company’s agent the letter he had received from Mr. Bieg, but this was over two months after the accident. He did not provide any information about the circumstances surrounding the accident. Later he moved and did not furnish the company with his new address.

The court said that an insurance policy is a contract and its provision should be upheld by the court where such provisions are clear and unambiguous and not illegal.

The actions of the insured did not constitute notice as required by the policy, and he failed to cooperate as stipulated by the policy; therefore, his insurance carrier was not liable.

Sowinski vs Ramey et al – No. 60350 – Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, fifth division – February 27, 1976 – 344 North Eastern Reporter(2d) 635. (Rough Notes Magazine August, 1976).