Illinois Official Reports
Supreme Court
Nelson v. Artley, 2015 IL 118058
Caption in Supreme DeSHAW NELSON, Appellee, v. DONALD ARTLEY (Enterprise
Court: Leasing Company of Chicago, Appellant).
Docket No. 118058
Filed October 8, 2015
Decision Under Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; heard in that
Review court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Hon.
Alexander P. White, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Appellate court judgment reversed.
Circuit court judgment affirmed.
Counsel on Hugh C. Griffin, of Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, and Esther Joy
Appeal Schwartz, of Stellato & Schwartz, Ltd., both of Chicago, and Bettina J.
Strauss and Timothy J. Hasken, of Bryan Cave LLP, of St. Louis,
Missouri, for appellant.
Lisa K. Lange, of Chicago, for appellee.
Richard P. Schweitzer, of Washington, D.C., and William D. Brejcha,
of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., of Chicago, for
amicus curiae Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Inc.
Justices JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Chief Justice Garman and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Burke,
and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 At issue in this case is the extent of a rental car company’s financial responsibility for a
default judgment entered against a driver of one of its vehicles where, as here, the company
chose to comply with our state’s financial responsibility laws by obtaining a certificate of
self-insurance from the Secretary of State. Adhering to a decision by the appellate court in
Fellhauer v. Alhorn, 361 Ill. App. 3d 792 (2005), the circuit court concluded that the rental car
company’s liability was limited to the same minimum coverage provisions applicable to rental
car companies electing to meeting their financial responsibility obligations through the
purchase of an insurance policy. On review of the circuit court’s judgment, the appellate court
in this case rejected Fellhauer, undertook its own statutory analysis and held that the rental car
company was liable for the full amount of the default judgment. 2014 IL App (1st) 121681. We
granted the rental car company’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Jan. 1,
2015). We also allowed the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and the Truck Renting and
Leasing Association to file friend of the court briefs. Ill. S. Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010). For
the reasons that follow, we now reverse the appellate court’s judgment and affirm the judgment
of the circuit court.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 Suzanne Haney rented a car from Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago (Enterprise).
While being driven by an individual named Donald Artley, the vehicle crossed the center line
of the roadway and collided with an oncoming car operated by DeShaw Nelson. Nelson
subsequently sued Artley in the circuit court of Cook County to recover damages for the
injuries he sustained in the accident. Artley was uninsured. When he failed to file an answer or
otherwise appear after having been served with the complaint and summons, Nelson sought
and obtained an order of default against him. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 (West 2010). Following a
prove-up hearing, the circuit court found that Nelson had sustained $600,000 in damages and
entered judgment in that amount in his favor and against Artley.
¶4 After obtaining the default judgment, Nelson brought a supplementary action against
Enterprise pursuant to section 2-1402 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1402
(West 2010)) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 277 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013) to determine whether the
company held any property from which the judgment could be satisfied. In response to a
citation to discover assets issued by the circuit court, Enterprise denied that it was in
possession of any property of Artley, the judgment debtor. It also raised three affirmative
defenses to the citation or to any efforts to obtain recovery from it in connection with Nelson’s
judgment against Artley.
¶5 First, Enterprise asserted that Artley was not its customer, was not listed on its rental
agreement with Haney as an authorized user of the vehicle, and did not even have Haney’s
permission to use the vehicle. To the contrary, Haney had reported the vehicle as stolen.
Accordingly, Enterprise argued, it had “no obligation to extend any financial protection to
[Artley] under [the] Motor Vehicle Code or Illinois public policy or Illinois case law
construing same in any amount.”
¶6 For its second affirmative defense, Enterprise contended in the alternative that it was
self-insured as permitted by Illinois law and that under the appellate court’s decision in
-2-
Fellhauer v. Alhorn, 361 Ill. App. 3d 792 (2005), its total financial responsibility for the
liability of any authorized driver was $100,000 per occurrence, the same minimum required of
rental car companies which elect to meet their statutory financial responsibility obligations
through the purchase of insurance policies. Enterprise asserted that it had already paid $50,000
to settle another claim arising from the same accident brought by an individual named Antoine
Ousley, and had tendered an additional $50,000 to the court to allocate between Nelson and a
third injured party named Renardo Page. Because those sums exhausted the $100,000 per
occurrence liability limits claimed by the company, Enterprise contended that it had already
tendered all that it could be required to pay.
¶7 Enterprise’s third and final affirmative defense pertained solely to the separate but related
issue of liability for court costs and postjudgment interest. Enterprise argued that there was
nothing in its rental agreement with Haney nor in the applicable Illinois statutes that would
obligate Enterprise to pay costs or postjudgment interest in connection with the default
judgment. Accordingly, Enterprise contended, there was no foundation to support recovery of
either of those items.
¶8 Enterprise attached various documents to its written response to the citation. These
included the certificate of self-insurance it had obtained from the Illinois Department of
Insurance and a copy of its rental agreement with Haney. Paragraph 7 of the rental agreement,
entitled “Responsibility to Third Parties,” specified that Enterprise would comply with
applicable motor vehicle financial responsibility laws as a self-insured entity and would not
extend any responsibility to the renter, additional authorized drivers, passengers, or third
parties except to the minimum amount set forth in the relevant financial responsibility laws.
¶9 After Nelson moved unsuccessfully to strike Enterprise’s affirmative defenses, he filed a
petition against the company for a turnover order seeking $600,000, the entire amount of his
default judgment against Artley, plus interest and costs. Although the circuit court granted
relief to Nelson, it ruled that it was obligated to follow the appellate court’s decision in
Fellhauer and that under Fellhauer, Enterprise’s liability under Illinois’s financial
responsibility laws was limited to the same minimum coverage levels required of rental car
companies which elect to purchase insurance policies, $50,000 per person, $100,000 per
occurrence. As previously noted, Enterprise had already paid $50,000 to settle a claim by
Ousley arising out of the accident and tendered an additional $50,000 to be allocated between
Nelson and Page. Because the court had previously allotted $25,000 to Page, its final order
limited the turnover amount to Nelson to $25,000, the balance left under the $100,000 per
occurrence limit.
¶ 10 Nelson appealed, arguing that Fellhauer was wrongly decided and should not be followed.
The appellate court agreed with Nelson’s position. It rejected Fellhauer’s construction of the
governing financial responsibility laws and concluded that where, as here, a rental car
company elects to meet Illinois’s mandatory liability insurance requirements by obtaining a
certificate of self-insurance, its financial responsibility is not limited to the same minimum
amounts required when mandatory liability insurance requirements are met through the
purchase of an insurance policy. Rather, the company is obligated to pay the full amount of
judgments entered against the drivers of its vehicles. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed
the judgment of the circuit court and remanded to that court with directions to enter a turnover
-3-
order in favor of Nelson in an amount sufficient to cover the entire $600,000 default judgment
entered against Artley. 2014 IL App (1st) 121681, ¶ 37.
¶ 11 Enterprise petitioned this court for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2013). We
granted that petition in order to resolve the conflict between Fellhauer and the appellate
court’s decision in this case regarding the extent of a rental car company’s liability where, as
here, the company elected to meet its statutory financial responsibility obligations by
self-insuring. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the appellate court in this case erred
when it rejected the construction of the law adopted in Fellhauer. The judgment of the
appellate court is therefore reversed and the judgment of the circuit court, which adhered to
Fellhauer, is affirmed.
¶ 12 ANALYSIS
¶ 13 In undertaking our review, we begin by noting that the sole basis for Enterprise’s financial
liability in this case is the obligation imposed on it pursuant to this state’s financial
responsibility laws by virtue of its ownership of the vehicle which collided with Nelson when it
was being driven by Artley, who was uninsured. Enterprise itself committed no wrongdoing.
While Enterprise initially contested its financial liability on the grounds that Artley had stolen
the vehicle and was not an authorized driver, it has waived that defense. The company now
concedes that under Illinois law, it must pay some portion of Nelson’s default judgment against
Artley. The only question before us is how much of the judgment it must pay. Resolution of
that question turns solely on the terms of the relevant financial responsibility statutes, which
are set forth in the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 2010)). Statutory
construction presents a question of law. Our review is therefore de novo. McVey v. M.L.K.
Enterprises, LLC, 2015 IL 118143, ¶ 11.
¶ 14 Section 7-601(a) of the Illinois Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law (625 ILCS
5/7-601(a) (West 2010)) mandates liability insurance coverage for automobiles and other
motor vehicles designed to be used on a public highway. Under the statute, no person is
permitted to operate, register or maintain registration of such a motor vehicle unless the vehicle
is covered by a liability insurance policy. Progressive Universal Insurance Co. of Illinois v.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 215 Ill. 2d 121, 128 (2005). The purpose of this insurance
requirement is to protect the public by securing payment of their damages. Id. at 129. The law
does not, however, require that the full amount of any loss be covered. Rather, it mandates only
certain minimum levels of coverage. At the time of the events giving rise to this litigation,
liability insurance policies were required to provide coverage of not less than $20,000 for the
death or bodily injury of any one person, $40,000 for the death of bodily injury of two or more
persons, and $15,000 for property damage occurring in any one motor vehicle accident. See
625 ILCS 5/7-203, 7-601(a) (West 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 226 Ill. 2d 395, 402 (2007).
¶ 15 Special financial responsibility provisions have also been enacted for persons who operate
motor vehicles to transport passengers for hire (see 625 ILCS 5/8-101 (West 2010)); persons
who operate medical transport vehicles (see 625 ILCS 5/8-101.1 (West 2010)); and owners of
for-rent vehicles such as Enterprise (see 625 ILCS 5/9-101 (West 2010)). All are required to
provide “proof of financial responsibility” to the Secretary of State of Illinois. 625 ILCS
5/8-101, 8-101.1, 9-101 (West 2010). The purpose of this requirement is to provide members
-4-
of the public with some modicum of protection against negligent drivers of these various types
of vehicles. Fellhauer v. Alhorn, 361 Ill. App. 3d 792, 797 (2005). As with the minimum
liability insurance required by the Illinois Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law, it
was not intended to provide full coverage for losses. It simply insures that injured persons have
some coverage when otherwise there would be none. See Fogel v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of
Chicago, 353 Ill. App. 3d 165, 176 (2004); Insurance Car Rentals, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., 152 Ill. App. 3d 225, 232 (1987).
¶ 16 During the period relevant to this case, the general definition section of the Vehicle Code
defined “[p]roof of financial responsibility” as “[p]roof of ability to respond in damages for
any liability thereafter incurred resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or operation of
a motor vehicle for bodily injury to or death of any person in the amount of $20,000, and
subject to this limit for any one person injured or killed, in the amount of $40,000 for bodily
injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any one accident, and for damage to property in the
amount of $15,000 resulting from any one accident.” 625 ILCS 5/1-164.5 (West 2010). The
minimum coverage specified under the foregoing definition was thus the same as the minimum
coverage required under section 7-601(a) of the Illinois Safety and Family Financial
Responsibility Law (625 ILCS 5/7-601(a) (West 2010)). Higher limits, however, were
imposed by the General Assembly with respect to persons who operate motor vehicles to
transport passengers for hire, persons who operate medical transport vehicles, and owners of
for-rent vehicles such as Enterprise. See 625 ILCS 5/8-103, 8-104, 8-109, 9-103, 9-105 (West
2010). The specified categories of owners and operators were subject to these higher limits
rather than the limits set forth in section 1-164.5’s general definition of “[p]roof of financial
responsibility” by virtue of section 1-101 of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/1-101 (West
2010)), which stated that the general definitions of words and phrases contained in the Code do
not apply “when the context otherwise requires and except where another definition set forth in
another Chapter of this Code and applicable to that Chapter or a designated part thereof is
applicable.” 1
¶ 17 Under the Vehicle Code, car rental companies such as Enterprise have the option of
satisfying the proof of financial responsibility requirement in any one of three alternate ways.
They may file with the Secretary of State (1) a motor vehicle liability bond as provided in
section 9-103 of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/9-103 (West 2010)); (2) an insurance policy or
other proof of insurance in a form prescribed by the Secretary as provided in section 9-105 of
the Code (625 ILCS 5/9-105 (West 2010)); or (3) a certificate of self-insurance issued by the
Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance. 625 ILCS 5/9-102 (West 2010).
¶ 18 If the insurance policy option is selected, the policy must insure the operator of the rented
vehicle against liability “to a minimum amount of $50,000 because of bodily injury to, or death
of any one person or damage to property and $100,000 because of bodily injury to or death of 2
or more persons in any one motor vehicle accident.” 625 ILCS 5/9-105 (West 2010). Similarly,
if the rental car company elects to file a motor vehicle bond as proof of financial responsibility,
the bond must cover judgments against the customer and owner of the vehicle and specified
others for damage to property other than the rented vehicle, or for any injury to, or for the death
1
We further note that vehicles subject to these heightened requirements have been expressly
exempted from the normal liability insurance policy requirements set forth in section 7-601 of the
Vehicle Code. See 625 ILCS 5/7-601(b) (West 2010).
-5-
of any person, including an occupant of the vehicle resulting from the vehicle’s operation and
must be “in the penal sum of $100,000,” the same minimum upper limit as an insurance policy.
625 ILCS 5/9-103 (West 2010). When the insurance policy and bond options are chosen, the
person seeking to engage in the business of renting out a motor vehicle must apply for and
receive approval of the policy or bond from the Secretary of State. 625 ILCS 5/9-108 (West
2010).
¶ 19 In the case before us today, Enterprise elected the third option for proving its financial
responsibility. Rather than purchase an insurance policy or motor vehicle liability bond, it
obtained a certificate of self-insurance from the Director of the Illinois Department of
Insurance. In order to obtain that certificate, Enterprise was required to satisfy the Illinois
Department of Insurance that it was able and will continue to be able to pay a judgment
obtained against it as provided by section 7-502 of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/7-502 (West
2010)). 92 Ill. Adm. Code 1090.10 (1973); see Huff v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Midwest,
307 Ill. App. 3d 773, 778 (1999). The judgment in this case was, of course, against the
vehicle’s driver and not Enterprise itself. As we have previously noted, however, Enterprise no
longer disputes that Nelson may seek redress against it to collect on the default judgment
Nelson obtained against the driver of Enterprise’s rental vehicle. In this, Enterprise’s position
is consistent with the position it has taken in prior litigation, and we assume, without deciding,
that this position is correct. See Huff v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Midwest, 307 Ill. App. 3d
773. In the case before us today, Enterprise questions only how much of the default judgment it
is obligated to pay.
¶ 20 The provisions of the Vehicle Code authorizing rental car companies to prove their
financial responsibility by obtaining certificates of self-insurance do not specify the magnitude
of the companies’ liability exposure under the certificates. In Fellhauer v. Alhorn, 361 Ill. App.
3d 792, 799 (2005), however, our appellate court concluded that with respect to the companies’
liability to injured third parties, the legislature intended no distinction between self-insurers
and those companies that elected to meet their proof of financial responsibility obligations
through the other methods permitted under the law. More precisely, the appellate court
interpreted the law to mean that self-insuring rental car companies are subject to the same
limits on liability that would apply if they elected, instead, to meet their proof of financial
responsibility obligations through the purchase of insurance policies pursuant to section 9-105
of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/9-105 (West 2010)). The court reached this conclusion based
on the relevant statutory provisions governing proof of financial responsibility, the purposes of
those provisions, and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions applying comparable law in
similar circumstances. Fellhauer, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 797-99.
¶ 21 The appellate court in the case before us acknowledged the existence of Fellhauer, but
accorded it no deference. 2014 IL App (1st) 121681, ¶¶ 22-25. Rejecting the rationale
advanced by the Fellhauer court as well as the authorities from other jurisdictions on which
Fellhauer relied, it undertook its own, independent interpretation of the applicable Illinois
statutes. Emphasizing the absence of express language limiting liability where proof of
financial responsibility is established through a certificate of self-insurance and purporting to
take into account the statutory scheme as a whole, it concluded that the liability faced by
self-insuring rental car companies was, in effect, unlimited. Id. ¶¶ 26-27.
-6-
¶ 22 Enterprise challenges the appellate court’s analysis on several grounds. It contends that the
court’s decision places Illinois law in direct conflict with the so-called Graves Amendment to
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) (49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2006)) federal legislation which generally preempts all
state statutory and common law to the extent such law would hold owners in the business of
renting or leasing motor vehicles vicariously liable for the negligence of drivers, except when
there is negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (see Beth Bates Holliday,
Validity, Construction, and Application of Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C.A. § 30106)
Governing Rented or Leased Motor Vehicle Safety and Responsibility, 29 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 223
(2008)). Enterprise further argues that the appellate court wrongly disregarded the terms of the
rental car contract between Enterprise and Haney, which limited Enterprise’s financial
responsibility for judgments against renters or other drivers of its vehicles to the “applicable
state minimum financial responsibility amounts.” Enterprise’s primary argument, however, is
that the appellate court’s judgment is premised on an interpretation of the governing provisions
of Illinois law which contravenes basic rules of statutory construction.
¶ 23 We believe that Enterprise’s challenge to the appellate court’s construction of the relevant
statutes is meritorious and that the Fellhauer court’s interpretation of the law was correct. As a
preliminary matter, Fellhauer has been in place for a decade. Until the appellate court in this
case ruled as it did, no court had challenged the soundness of Fellhauer’s determination that
rental car companies electing to meet their proof of financial responsibility obligations under
section 9-101 by self-insuring under section 9-102(3) were subject to the same minimum
coverage provisions applicable to rental car companies electing to meeting their financial
responsibility obligations through the purchase of insurance policies under section 9-102(2).
Fellhauer stood unquestioned, and the legislature allowed the relevant provisions of the
Vehicle Code to remain in effect, as written, without change throughout this period. Where, as
here, the legislature chooses not to amend a statute after a judicial construction, it will be
presumed that the legislature acquiesced in the court’s statement of legislative intent.
Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill. 2d 30, 50 (1998).
¶ 24 We do not rely on this presumption alone. The appellate court’s construction of the
relevant statutory provisions must be rejected for other reasons as well. When interpreting a
statute, courts must “ ‘consider the statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it
addresses and the apparent intent of the legislature in enacting it.’ [Citation.]” People v. Allen,
2015 IL 113135, ¶ 32. Although the appellate court in this case acknowledged the need to
consider the relevant provisions of the Vehicle Code as a whole (2014 IL App (1st) 121681,
¶ 24), it ultimately failed to recognize that the express, undisputed and overriding purpose of
the self-insurance option, as with the two alternate options available to rental car companies
under section 9-102 of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/9-102 (West 2010)), is simply to
establish “proof of financial responsibility.” As we discussed earlier in this opinion, “proof of
financial responsibility,” as that term is defined and used in the Vehicle Code, is not proof of
ability to fully satisfy judgments. Rather, it is merely proof of ability to provide some base
level of financial coverage where otherwise there would be none. That base-level coverage is
therefore the standard by which the self-insurers’ liability must be gauged.
¶ 25 Imposing unlimited liability on those who elect to self-insure under section 9-102(3) (625
ILCS 5/9-102(3) (West 2010)) is patently incompatible with this standard. It is the same as
saying that anyone who chooses to meet the minimum financial responsibility requirements
-7-
through self-insurance will be subject to maximum financial exposure. That is a deal no
rational economic actor would be likely to take. Under the appellate court’s interpretation of
the law, the self-insurance option would therefore be rendered meaningless. This is
impermissible. Construing a statute in a way that renders part of it a nullity offends basic
principles of statutory interpretation. See Madison Two Associates v. Pappas, 227 Ill. 2d 474,
493 (2008).
¶ 26 The appellate court’s interpretation would also have random and inconsistent
consequences for the motoring public. Under the result reached by the appellate court, the
ability of persons injured in accidents involving rental cars to recover from the cars’ owners
would become a lottery. If a rental company met its proof of financial responsibility
obligations through purchase of an insurance policy or bond, it could cap its liability at a
maximum of $100,000. If it turned out that the company had elected to self-insure, however,
the company’s liability exposure would be unlimited. Two otherwise identical injured parties
could thus face substantially different recovery prospects based solely on the fortuity of which
option the rental car company had chosen to satisfy our state’s proof of financial responsibility
requirements. This could be a boon for a person injured in an accident which happened to
involve a self-insured rental car. For all other injured parties, however, the inequity is manifest.
¶ 27 In construing a statute, we presume that the legislature did not intend absurd, inconvenient,
or unjust results (Alvarez v. Pappas, 229 Ill. 2d 217, 232 (2008)), and we will not, absent the
clearest reasons, interpret a law in a way that would yield such results (Town of Cicero v.
Green, 211 Ill. 241, 244 (1904)). We see no clear reason why the legislature would have
wanted to subject self-insuring car rental companies to greater liability than all other car rental
companies. Indeed, we fail to see any reason why the legislature would have wanted to single
such companies out for special treatment. For purposes of insuring compliance with this state’s
proof of financial responsibility standards, the distinction would accomplish nothing for
anyone. We therefore reject it, as did the appellate court in Fellhauer.
¶ 28 In the course of its analysis, the court in Fellhauer observed that its conclusion, i.e., that the
legislature did not intend to treat self-insurers differently than their counterparts who elected to
be covered by traditional insurance policies and expose them to unlimited liability, was
dictated by common sense. Fellhauer, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 798. The appellate court panel in this
case disparaged Fellhauer’s reliance on common sense, suggesting that it was not an
appropriate consideration or, at least, not sufficient authority to support the court’s conclusions
regarding the meaning and operation of the relevant statutes. 2014 IL App (1st) 121681, ¶¶ 22,
24. These comments echoed criticism by the dissenting justice in Fellhauer, who complained
that the “court should not rewrite statutes with its own ‘common sense.’ ” Fellhauer, 361 Ill.
App. 3d at 801 (Myerscough, J., dissenting).
¶ 29 With due respect to the appellate court panel in this case and the dissenting justice in
Fellhauer, we do not believe this criticism is valid. For one thing, there is nothing inherently
objectionable about using common sense when deciphering a statute. To the contrary, our
court has specifically cited with approval the proposition that courts “do not set aside common
experience and common sense when construing statutes.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Exelon Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 234 Ill. 2d 266, 282 (2009). Moreover and more
importantly, when the majority in Fellhauer referred to common sense, at no time did it
suggest that its subjective beliefs were in any way a substitute for legal reasoning and
-8-
authority. Rather, it used “common sense” as a shorthand for deductive reasoning based on the
language and purposes of the law and the consequences of a contrary construction. It then
proceeded to reference case law from other jurisdictions to further support its position, there
being none directly on point from Illinois. Fellhauer, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 798-99. The
conclusion it reached was properly followed by the circuit court in this case. It should have
been followed by the appellate court as well. In light of this holding, we need not reach
Enterprise’s additional arguments that the decision by the appellate court in this case is
incompatible with the Grave’s Amendment and wrongly disregarded the terms of the rental car
contract between Enterprise and Haney.
¶ 30 CONCLUSION
¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court was correct when it construed the relevant
provisions of the Vehicle Code to mean that Enterprise’s financial responsibility was limited to
the same minimum coverage provisions applicable to rental car companies electing to meet
their financial responsibility obligations through the purchase of an insurance policy. Under
that construction of the law, the amount Enterprise is obligated to pay Nelson under the
turnover order is limited to $25,000, which it has already tendered. Contrary to the view taken
by the appellate court, Enterprise is not liable for the entire $600,000 default judgment. The
judgment of the appellate court is therefore reversed and the circuit court’s judgment is
affirmed.
¶ 32 Appellate court judgment reversed.
¶ 33 Circuit court judgment affirmed.
-9-