Ronald Saslow v. Bankers Standard Insurance

── Ronald Saslow v. Bankers Standard Insurance ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-1793 RONALD SASLOW and ELLEN SASLOW, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 22-cv-4063 — Steven C. Seeger, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 25, 2026 — DECIDED MAY 28, 2026 ____________________ Before KIRSCH, JACKSON-AKIWUMI, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Ronald Saslow and his passenger were injured in a car accident. Ronald and his wife, Ellen Saslow, had auto and umbrella insurance policies with Bank- ers Standard Insurance, and the Saslows filed claims with the company. Bankers Standard made payments for medical ex- penses and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, but the Saslows believe they should be able to stack their 2 No. 25-1793 coverages to recover more, and so filed this lawsuit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Finding that the Saslows were not entitled to additional payments, the district court granted summary judgment to Bankers Standard as to the Saslows’ claims. We affirm. I The essential facts are undisputed. At the time of the acci- dent, Ronald and Ellen Saslow had an auto insurance policy through Bankers Standard Insurance. The policy included coverage for medical expenses and damages caused by unin- sured/underinsured motorists (UM/UIM). Of medical ex- penses coverage, the policy said that Bankers Standard would “pay up to your medical expenses coverage limit. That is the most we’ll pay for each person injured in any one vehicle acci- dent, no matter how many people or vehicles were involved.” Similarly, the policy said that for UM/UIM coverage, Bankers Standard would “pay up to your coverage limit for that cov- erage. That is the most we’ll pay for each occurrence, no matter how many people or vehicles were involved.” The policy de- fined coverage limit as “the most we’ll pay for an occurrence or loss,” and noted that each type of coverage had its own limit, as shown on the declarations page. An occurrence meant “the accident that causes bodily injury, property dam- age or loss.” The declarations page of the auto policy (reproduced be- low) shows that the Saslows insured five different vehicles, and paid premiums specific to each vehicle. The first two of the Saslows’ cars and their associated coverages, premiums, and limits were shown on one page of the agreement: No. 25-1793 3 And information relating to the other three cars was dis- played on the following page: The auto policy said that Bankers Standard would pay all the money it owed within 60 days of receiving sworn proof of loss. Ronald Saslow was also covered by an umbrella policy, a type of insurance which generally acts as excess coverage on top of a primary policy. Premcor USA, Inc. v. Am. Home Assur- ance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 525 (7th Cir. 2005). Saslow’s umbrella policy was a follow form agreement, which meant that the policy followed the definitions, terms, and conditions of the underlying insurance (here, the auto policy discussed above). The umbrella policy included UM/UIM coverage up to a limit of $1 million “per occurrence.” The umbrella policy said the UM/UIM coverage limit was the most Bankers Standard would pay “regardless of the number of insured persons, claims made, persons injured, locations insured, or vehicles or watercraft involved in an occurrence.” 4 No. 25-1793 After the acciden