An Illinois appeals court on December 9, 2025, revived a policyholder’s uninsured motorist (UM) coverage suit after concluding American Family Mutual Insurance Company’s limitations wording was too vague to shorten the time to sue.
The dispute stems from a March 23, 2015, rear-end collision in Leyden Township. A minivan driven by Miguel Angel Sanchez-Lopez, who was uninsured and had a suspended license, struck the back of a state snowplow operated by Carlos E. Garcia. Garcia, a Wisconsin resident, carried up to $500,000 in UM coverage with American Family.
The policy required Garcia to notify American Family as soon as reasonably possible, describe the accident, and identify any injured persons and witnesses. On May 10, 2016, more than a year after the crash, Garcia’s attorney sent a letter to American Family’s Madison office demanding uninsured/underinsured coverage and asserting an attorney’s lien. The letter provided Garcia’s name and the date of the accident but did not include a claim or policy number. American Family returned it on May 16, 2016, asking for a claim and/or policy number. Counsel re-dated and re-sent the letter on March 1, 2021; American Family again returned it on March 5, 2021, repeating the request.
Garcia sued in Cook County on March 22, 2017, naming Sanchez-Lopez and the vehicle owner, then voluntarily dismissed in April 2019 and refiled on May 1, 2019, naming only Sanchez-Lopez. On March 22, 2021, Garcia amended to add a declaratory judgment count against American Family seeking UM benefits. On April 22, 2021, American Family denied the claim, asserting counsel’s letter in 2015 had been insufficient, that the negligence action was not filed within Illinois’s two-year bodily injury statute of limitations and impaired subrogation rights, and that the tortfeasor was the snowplow driver and likely insured.
American Family moved to dismiss the declaratory count under section 2-619(a)(5) as time-barred, relying on the policy’s Suit Against Us clause in Part VI – General Provisions: “We may not be sued unless all the terms of this policy are complied with. We may not be sued under the Uninsured Motorist coverage on any claim that is time-barred by the tort statute of limitations.” The circuit court dismissed, finding the action untimely whether measured by Illinois’s two-year tort statute or Wisconsin’s three-year tort statute.
The appellate court reversed. It held the clause ambiguous for a contract coverage suit because it does not specify a concrete limitations period or a clear trigger for when the clock starts. In the absence of a specific and clear contractual time limit, Illinois applies its 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts, making Garcia’s declaratory filing timely. The court contrasted the clause with wording Illinois courts have upheld – such as requiring suit “within two years after the accident” – and found persuasive out-of-state decisions rejecting similar UM/UIM formulations that point generally to tort statutes without specifics. The court declined to follow a contrary Indiana intermediate appellate decision.
The ruling returns Garcia’s coverage claim to the trial court. Separately, Garcia obtained a default against Sanchez-Lopez and a $300,000 judgment on the negligence count after prove-up, which remains in place.
In Illinois, referencing “the tort statute of limitations” in a UM provision is not enough to shorten the time to sue. To be enforceable, policy language must set a specific period and a clear trigger – such as a fixed number of years after the accident. Otherwise, courts will apply the 10-year contract statute, extending the window for UM coverage litigation.
