Safeco denied the request for $3,000 in coverage and, instead, offered $250, which it stated was the policy limit for the theft of money.

Mr. Walker sued and Safeco moved for summary judgment.

The court ruled in favor of the insurer, and Mr. Walker appealed.

The Safeco Policy

Section I of the policy provided for property coverage, including coverage for theft of personal property. It had a section for special limits for personal property that provided that:

The following groups of personal property are covered only up to the special limit shown on your Policy Declarations page.

It then listed in part:

a. Money, prepaid cards or passes, monetary value carried on electronic-chip or magnetic cards, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware and platinum

c. Securities, debit cards, checks, cashier's checks, traveler's checks, money orders and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports, tickets, personal documents, and records or data.

Section II of the policy provided for liability coverage, including:

Credit Card, Fund Transfer Card, Forgery and Counterfeit Money

, stating that it would pay up to the limit shown on the policy declarations page for the legal obligation of an insured to pay because of theft or unauthorized use of credit cards or:

b. loss resulting from theft or unauthorized use of a fund transfer card used for deposit, withdrawal, or transfer of funds.

The policy stated that it did not cover:

use

by a resident of the insured's household, a person entrusted with the credit card or fund transfer card, or any person if any insured had not complied with all terms and conditions under which the credit card or fund transfer card was issued.

The policy's declarations page stated that, under Section I for property coverages and special limits of liability:

a. Money, pre-paid cards …

and listed a $250 limit. It also listed:

c. Securities, debit cards …

with a limit of $3,000. The page then listed a new section for:

Other Additional Policy Coverages

,which included:

Credit Card, Fund Transfer, Forgery & Counterfeit Money

with a limit of $3,000.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed, rejecting Mr. Walker's contention that the provision for a “Fund Transfer” on the declarations page applied and entitled him to $3,000 instead of $250 for a loss of money.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that, when the declarations page was read in conjunction with the policy, it was “clear” that the reference to a “Fund Transfer” on the declarations page referred to “the liability section of the policy.” In other words, the appellate court reasoned, the declarations page did not establish “freestanding liability coverage, apart from the liability-coverage section, for a loss that resulted from a transfer of funds.”

The appellate court next observed that the liability coverage section of the policy was not applicable as Mr. Walker had incurred no liability to a third party and, moreover, that because the policy specifically excluded coverage for loss by a household member, the provision on the declarations page for a “Fund Transfer” was not applicable. Instead, it concluded, the provision for the theft of “money” with a limit of $250 was the applicable provision.

The case is Walker v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., No. 2–15–0875 (Ill. Ct.App. March 29, 2016).