Pekin Ins. Co. v. Estate of Goben

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles with separate UIM coverages and separate premiums
• holding that the antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles with separate UIM coverages and separate premiums
• noting that in Illinois, unlike corporations, partnerships generally have no legal existence separate from their partners
• in determining ambiguity in insurance policy, courts look to whether provision is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, not existence of creative possibilities
• the columns on the declarations page for two cars could be read as providing either $500,000 or $1 million in underinsured motorist coverage and the ambiguity allowed the insured to stack benefits
• the columns on the declarations page for two cars could be read as providing either $500,000 or $1 million in underinsured motorist coverage and the ambiguity allowed the insured to stack benefits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).