Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Employers Insurance v. Ehlco Liquidating Trustgreen2 sentences2023Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 723. - 47 - ¶ 131 SPCA relies on Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust, 186 Ill. 2d 127, 160-61 (1999), where the court granted the insured’s request for fees and costs under section 155 due to the insurer’s delay of one year and four months between when the insurer was notified of the claim against the insured and when the insurer filed a declaratory action regarding coverage, while the insured settled the underlying case on its own. 2018Plaintiff cites the well-settled proposition that "[g]enerally, an abuse of discretion standard is utilized to review a circuit court's decision to award attorney fees and costs under section 155." Employers Insurance of Wausau , 186 Ill. 2d at 160 , 237 Ill.Dec. 82 , 708 N.E.2d 1122 . | 6 | 8 |
Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agencygreen2 sentences2023Hoover v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 110939, ¶ 40 ; see also, Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agency, 174 Ill. 2d 513, 522-23 (1996) (“[T]he statute provides an extracontractual remedy for policyholders who have suffered unreasonable and vexatious conduct by insurers with respect to a claim under the policy. 2013Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agency, 174 Ill. 2d 513, 523-24 (1996). ¶ 29 “An insurer will not be liable for attorney fees and costs under section 155 of the [Insurance] Code merely because it litigated and lost the issue of insurance coverage.” American States Insurance Co. v. CFM Construction Co., 398 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Keller v. State Farm Insurancegreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., Keller v. State Farm Insurance Co., 180 Ill. 1999See, e.g. , Keller v. State Farm Insurance Co. , 180 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Valdovinos v. Gallant Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Valdovinos v. Gallant Insurance Co., 314 Ill.App.3d 1018, 1021 , 248 Ill.Dec. 211 , 733 N.E.2d 886 (2000). 2010Valdovinos v. Gallant Insurance Co., 314 Ill. | 1 | 4 |
Statewide Insurance v. Houston General Insurancegreen2 sentences2023Statewide Insurance Co. v. Houston General Insurance Co., 397 Ill. 2012Id. ¶ 35 Based on the record, we cannot say Travelers acted in a vexatious and unreasonable -7- manner in settling the claim on the American 7150 crane because a bona fide coverage dispute exists. | 1 | 2 |
Siwek v. Whitegreen2 sentences2010Siwek v. White, 388 Ill.App.3d 152, 159-60 , 328 Ill.Dec. 744 , 905 N.E.2d 278 (2009). 2010Siwek v. White, 388 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Roppo v. Travelers Companiesgreen1 sentence2021Binding Illinois Supreme Court precedent holds that penalties under section 155 are only available to the insured, not to third parties who are strangers to the policy. 3 See Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 133 Ill. 2d 458, 466 (1990) (dismissing plaintiff’s third-party claim under section 155); Stamps v. Caldwell, 133 Ill. App. 2d 524, 528 (1971) (same); Roppo, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 652 (“the remedy embodied in section 155 of the Insurance Code does not extend to third parties”). ¶ 56 We conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor with r | 1 | 1 |
Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc.green1 sentence2021Binding Illinois Supreme Court precedent holds that penalties under section 155 are only available to the insured, not to third parties who are strangers to the policy. 3 See Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 133 Ill. 2d 458, 466 (1990) (dismissing plaintiff’s third-party claim under section 155); Stamps v. Caldwell, 133 Ill. App. 2d 524, 528 (1971) (same); Roppo, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 652 (“the remedy embodied in section 155 of the Insurance Code does not extend to third parties”). ¶ 56 We conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor with r | 1 | 1 |
Stamps v. Caldwellgreen1 sentence2021Binding Illinois Supreme Court precedent holds that penalties under section 155 are only available to the insured, not to third parties who are strangers to the policy. 3 See Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 133 Ill. 2d 458, 466 (1990) (dismissing plaintiff’s third-party claim under section 155); Stamps v. Caldwell, 133 Ill. App. 2d 524, 528 (1971) (same); Roppo, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 652 (“the remedy embodied in section 155 of the Insurance Code does not extend to third parties”). ¶ 56 We conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor with r | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Smithgreen1 sentence2013App. 3d 994, 1003 (2010). “[W]here a bona fide dispute concerning coverage exists, costs and sanctions [under section 155] are inappropriate.” State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Smith, 197 Ill. 2d 369, 380 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
American States Ins. Co. v. CFM Const. Co.green1 sentence2013Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agency, 174 Ill. 2d 513, 523-24 (1996). ¶ 29 “An insurer will not be liable for attorney fees and costs under section 155 of the [Insurance] Code merely because it litigated and lost the issue of insurance coverage.” American States Insurance Co. v. CFM Construction Co., 398 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Illinois Founders Insurance Company v. Williams
green
2 sentences2020Illinois Founders Insurance Co. v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 122481, ¶ 29 ; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Abbott Laboratories, 2014 IL App (1st) 132020 , ¶ 68. 2020Illinois Founders Insurance Co. v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 122481, ¶ 29 , 31 N.E.3d 311 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Marcheschi v. Illinois Farmers Insurance
green
2 sentences2001In the demand, defendant stated that he sought arbitration of those claims “in light of the decision of the First District Appellate Court in Marcheschi v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 298 Ill. 2001In the demand, defendant stated that he sought arbitration of those claims "in light of the decision of the First District Appellate Court in Marcheschi v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. , 298 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Hoover v. Country Mutual Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2023Hoover, 2012 IL App (1st) 110939, ¶ 41 . ¶ 54 III. 2023Hoover v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 110939, ¶ 40 ; see also, Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agency, 174 Ill. 2d 513, 522-23 (1996) (“[T]he statute provides an extracontractual remedy for policyholders who have suffered unreasonable and vexatious conduct by insurers with respect to a claim under the policy. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Olsak
green
1 sentence2022Finally, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of the award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 155 of the Insurance Code because Country Mutual’s conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious. ¶ 118 Affirmed. - 44 - 2022 IL App (1st) 200695 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 05-CH-2618; the Hon. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
North Shore Community Bank & Trust Co. v. Sheffield Wellington, LLC
green
1 sentence2020“De novo consideration means the reviewing court performs the same analysis that a trial judge would perform.” North Shore Community Bank & Trust Co. v. Sheffield Wellington LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 123784, ¶ 117 . ¶ 35 In contrast to the de novo standard applicable in the summary judgment context, courts generally apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s decision -9- 1-19-0320 regarding attorney fees and costs under section 155. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Abbott Laboratories
green
1 sentence2020Illinois Founders Insurance Co. v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 122481, ¶ 29 ; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Abbott Laboratories, 2014 IL App (1st) 132020 , ¶ 68. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
West American Insurance v. J.R. Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2011West American Insurance Co., 334 Ill. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Meier v. Aetna Life & Casualty Standard Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences2009App.3d 932, 940 , 103 Ill.Dec. 25 , 500 N.E.2d 1096 (1986)); however, when section 155 fees and costs are awarded as a judgment on the pleadings, the standard of review is de novo ( Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust, 186 Ill.2d 127, 160 , 237 Ill.Dec. 82 , 708 N.E.2d 1122 (1999)). 2009App.3d 932, 940 , 103 Ill.Dec. 25 , 500 N.E.2d 1096 (1986)); however, when section 155 fees and costs are awarded as a judgment on the pleadings, the standard of review is de novo ( Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust, 186 Ill.2d 127, 160 , 237 Ill.Dec. 82 , 708 N.E.2d 1122 (1999)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1990In reversing the circuit court, the appellate court held that sanctions may have been warranted pursuant to section 2 — 611 of the Code and, therefore, remanded the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings. ( 178 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.