The Appellate Court of Illinois has reversed a lower court’s decision that granted uninsured motorist (UM) coverage to a policyholder injured during a road altercation. The appellate panel found that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the insured was “using” his vehicle at the time of the incident—an essential condition under the policy.
The decision in Ahlgren v. Stonegate Insurance Co., Inc., 2025 IL App (1st) 240905, underscores how questions of fact and intent can preclude summary judgment in insurance disputes involving policy interpretation.
On May 6, 2021, Michael Ahlgren - owner of a towing company - was driving his company’s Chevrolet Silverado, which was insured by Stonegate Insurance Co., on State Route 71 in Oswego, Illinois. A confrontation ensued between Ahlgren and another driver, Saul Garcia, who allegedly threw objects at Ahlgren’s vehicle, including one that struck him in the head.
When Garcia turned into a parking lot, Ahlgren followed in the Silverado. He left the truck running, exited it, and walked approximately 25 steps toward Garcia’s vehicle, intending, he claimed, to obtain the license plate number to file a police complaint. Garcia then drove forward and struck Ahlgren, injuring him. Garcia, who was uninsured, later pleaded guilty to battery.
Ahlgren filed a declaratory judgment action seeking UM benefits under the Stonegate policy.
The dispute centered on the definition of “insured” under the UM endorsement of the policy. The endorsement provides coverage for individuals “using with your permission a covered ‘auto’ you own.” It was undisputed that Ahlgren had permission to operate the vehicle and that the Silverado was a covered auto.
The sole issue was whether Ahlgren was “using” the vehicle when he was struck, as required under the policy. The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 237 Ill. 2d 391 (2010), defines “use” as any action “rationally connected to the vehicle for the purpose of providing transportation or satisfying some other related need of the user.”
The Circuit Court of Cook County ruled in Ahlgren’s favor, holding that his attempt to gather identifying information related to a driving incident was sufficiently connected to his vehicle use.
On appeal, the First District panel concluded that summary judgment had been improperly granted because of conflicting evidence regarding Ahlgren’s intent.
Ahlgren testified that he exited his vehicle only to obtain Garcia’s license plate. However, Garcia testified that Ahlgren had acted aggressively, attempted to ram him with the truck, and threatened to kill him—prompting Garcia to drive forward in fear and strike Ahlgren.
The appellate court found these divergent accounts created factual disputes central to whether Ahlgren’s actions were rationally connected to the use of his Silverado. The surveillance footage provided limited clarification; while it showed Ahlgren exiting his truck and walking toward Garcia, it lacked audio and did not resolve conflicting claims regarding verbal threats or intentions.
Because “purpose” and “intent” are questions of fact under Illinois law, the court held that these matters must be decided at trial - not through summary judgment.
The appellate panel also emphasized that there was no controlling precedent directly addressing this factual scenario. While Schultz governs the definition of “use,” its application to incidents involving altercations between drivers who exit their vehicles remains unresolved in Illinois. As such, the court concluded that neither party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Given the unique (and disputed) facts of this case and the lack of authority on this issue, we cannot say that the law clearly mandates one outcome or the other,” the opinion states.
The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The ruling highlights the difficulty of resolving UM claims based on factual disputes, especially where physical proximity to the insured vehicle is not clearly tied to its use. For insurers, the case illustrates the risk of prematurely resolving such claims through summary judgment when conflicting witness accounts or disputed intent is involved.
Claims professionals, litigation counsel, and underwriting teams should be aware that even brief departures from a vehicle during driving-related confrontations may raise coverage questions that hinge on intent—a determination that courts may reserve for juries, not judges.
