John Loftis, Jr., owned and operated a tractor-trailer on which he had secured insurance from Vesta Companies, which covered damages to the vehicle caused by "collision with another object." Loftis was driving on an interstate highway when he drove over a pothole. The evidence showed that the main beam of the trailer was sheared off, spilling the contents onto the roadway and the adjacent shoulder. Damages totaled $5,534.00, and Loftis filed claim under his policy. Vesta denied coverage, stating that its policy covered "collision with another object" and that the damages sustained by the insured in this instance did not constitute a collision. The trial court agreed, and entered summary judgment for Vesta. The insured appealed.
Loftis argued that when his trailer struck the side of the pothole, this constituted a collision with another object, and that the provision was ambiguous. Vesta contended that the clause was unambiguous and the policy should be enforced. Vesta suggested that the trailer did not "collide" with the side of the pothole, or an object, but was "jostled" by an uneven part of the road.
In reversing the judgment entered for Vesta by the trial court, the higher court stated: "A contemporary over-the-road truck driver purchasing insurance would expect to have coverage for this type of occurrence . . . .We hold that the impact of a vehicle with a pothole located in the roadbed of an interstate highway constitutes a collision with another object and that the resulting damage is covered . . . "
The judgment in the lower court in favor of Vesta was reversed, and summary judgment for the insured was entered for $5,534.00 plus costs.
John Loftis, Jr., Appellant v. Vesta Companies--No. 3-97-0016--Appellate
Court of Illinois, Third District--October 16, 1997--686 North
Eastern Reporter 2d 383.