Case names and holdingsInsurance Law, March 2008HOLDING: Insured failed to satisfy condition precedent to coverage by not giving immediate notice to insurer when insured knew of an occurrence which would cause it to incur costs likely to be paid by insurer.
Case summariesInsurance Law, March 2008Summaries of recent cases of interest to insurance law practitioners.
Case names and holdingsInsurance Law, December 2007Recent cases of interest, arranged alphabetically.
Case summariesInsurance Law, December 2007Recent cases of interest to insurance law practitioners.
Case names and holdingsInsurance Law, September 2007A list of the cases in this issue, arranged alphabetically.
Case summariesInsurance Law, September 2007Summaries of the cases in this issue.
Failure to insure contraceptives was not sex discriminationBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2007Union Pacific Railroad provided health care benefits to its employees who were covered by collective bargaining agreements. While the health plans provided benefits for services such as routine physical exams, they excluded coverage for a number of things. They excluded both male and female contraceptive methods, prescription and non- prescription, when used for the sole purpose of contraception. The health plans only covered contraception when medically necessary for a non-contraceptive purpose.
The Illinois Supreme Court holds that fax blasting may be potentially covered under a commercial liability policyInsurance Law, April 2007In Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Swiderski Electronics, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court held that allegations against an insured for unsolicited faxes potentially fell within the insured’s commercial general liability “advertising injury” coverage as a “publication,” and “material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”
Case names and holdingsInsurance Law, January 2007A listing of recent cases, arranged alphabetically.
Case summariesInsurance Law, January 2007Summaries of recent cases.
Insurance law updateBy Scott A. BlumenshineInsurance Law, January 2007A binding arbitration agreement between an injured uninsured motorist claimant and her insurer did not bar her subsequent lawsuit alleging the insurer’s unreasonable and vexatious delay in handling her claim.
The ALTA 2006 title insurance policies and the issuance of survey coverageBy Richard F. BalesReal Estate Law, December 2006The purpose of this article is three-fold: (1), to set forth the survey-related changes to these new policies; (2), to suggest one method of addressing these changes; and (3), to provide a basis by which Illinois title companies can decide how to issue survey coverage under these title policies.
Appellate Court rules insurance exclusions ambiguousBy Raymond A. FylstraCorporate Law Departments, September 2006In Pekin Insurance Company v. Miller, No. 1-05-4086 (1st Dist. Aug. 8, 2006), a case of first impression in Illinois, the First District Appellate Court has held that exclusions j(5) and j(6) in the standard Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) insurance policy are ambiguous.
Case names and holdingsInsurance Law, September 2006Holding: Court order establishing a battery conviction against the insured, in and of itself, did not collaterally estop insured and victim from arguing that cut was negligently inflicted.
Case summariesInsurance Law, September 2006Holding: Court order establishing a battery conviction against the insured, in and of itself, did not collaterally estop insured and victim from arguing that cut was negligently inflicted.
Insurance law updateBy Robert H. HanafordInsurance Law, September 2006Recent cases of interest to insurance law practitioners.
Alphabetical listing of cases and holdingsInsurance Law, May 2006Founders Insurance Company v. Contreras, 2005 WL 3481345 (1st Dist. 2005), holding that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify non-permissive, unauthorized driver in personal injury automobile accident.
CasesInsurance Law, May 2006Holding: Insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify non-permissive, unauthorized driver in personal injury automobile accident.
Recent developments in insurance lawInsurance Law, May 2006Recently, the Third District Appellate Court in Illinois Farmers Insurance Company v. Kure,---N.E.2d---,26 WL 864, 368 (Ill.App.3Dist.2006) held there was a duty to defend on part of the insurer for parents of a tortfeasor under their homeowner’s liability insurance policy even though there was no separate bodily injury claimed by Plaintiff which result from the alleged negligent conduct of the parents.
CasesInsurance Law, February 2006Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Mudron, 358 Ill.App.3d 535, 295 Ill.Dec. 118 (Ill.App. 3 Dist., 2005)
Recent developments in insurance lawBy Laura KotelmanInsurance Law, February 2006On August 18, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a long-awaited opinion in Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 91494, 2005 WL 1981444 (Ill., Aug. 18, 2005).
CasesInsurance Law, January 2006Summaries of recent cases.
Criminal acts exclusion in auto gap insurance policy applies to driving under the influenceBy Michael J. MarovichCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2006In Bohner v. Ace American Insurance Company, 359 Ill. App. 3d 621, 834 N.E.2d 635 (2nd Dist. 2005), the Second District Illinois Appellate Court held that the criminal acts exclusion in an automobile gap insurance policy applies in a driving-under-the-influence case.
