Thomas Polk v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company

── Thomas Polk v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company ── Case No.: 25-1553 Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-1553 THOMAS T.D. POLK, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of KATARZYNA KUREK-POLK, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY and SECURA SU- PREME INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. 24 C 00935 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 4, 2025 — DECIDED APRIL 2, 2026 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, KIRSCH, and KOLAR, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. This insurance-coverage dispute arises from a tragic car accident. While assisting another mo- torist on the side of the road, Thomas T.D. Polk and his wife, Katarzyna Kurek-Polk, were struck by an oncoming vehicle. Thomas was injured and Katarzyna was killed. Thomas and 2 No. 25-1553 Katarzyna’s estate received $100,000 from the responsible tortfeasor. Thomas submitted claims under three underinsured mo- torist (UIM) policies that he and his wife carried at the time of the accident: a $1,000,000 policy with AMCO Insurance Com- pany; a $500,000 policy with Progressive Northern Insurance Company; and a $500,000 policy with Secura Supreme Insur- ance Company. All three policies contain a proportionate lia- bility provision that says the insurer’s liability is the pro rata share of all UIM coverage. The parties agree that the pro rata shares are as follows: 50% AMCO; 25% Secura; and 25% Pro- gressive. Each policy also has an “Other Insurance” anti- stacking provision which limits liability to the highest limit of liability under any one policy. Here, that amount is $1,000,000 under the AMCO policy. In addition to the $100,000 from the tortfeasor, Thomas and Katarzyna’s estate received $800,000 from a settlement with AMCO and were offered $220,000 in UIM benefits from Secura, which they rejected. Progressive did not make or offer any payments under its policy. Subsequently, Thomas—both in his individual capacity and on behalf of Katarzyna’s estate (collectively, Polk)—sued Progressive and Secura, alleging breach of contract. Secura, Progressive, and Polk all moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the in- surance companies and denied Polk’s cross-motion. The dis- trict court concluded that the Progressive and Secura policies provide per accident, as opposed to per person, coverage and that the anti-stacking language in the policies limited Polk’s recovery to the highest UIM coverage available under any one policy—in this case, $1,000,000 under the AMCO policy. It was undisputed that Polk had already received $100,000 from No. 25-1553 3 the at-fault driver and $800,000 from the AMCO settlement. Because Secura had offered to settle Polk’s claims, the district court ordered it to pay Polk $100,000 (to bring the total recov- ery to $1,000,000) and reasoned that Progressive was not obli- gated to provide any coverage under its policy. Polk ap- pealed. We apply de novo review to a district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Cent. States, Se. and Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Univar Sols. USA Inc., 148 F.4th 426, 429 (7th Cir. 2025). Because we need only consider defendants’ motions against Polk, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to Polk and take all reasonable inferences in Polk’s favor. Gills v. Hamilton, 164 F.4th 640, 644 (7th Cir. 2026). Sum- mary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dis- pute as to any material fact and the