insurance claim in Illinois

2017App. 3d at 660 (“ ‘The insurance clause shifts the risk of loss to the insurance company regardless of which party is at fault.’ [Citation.]” ); Ralph Korte Construction Co. v. Springfield Mechanical Co., 54 Ill.

2016App. 3d at 660 (“ ‘The insurance clause shifts the risk of loss to the insurance company regardless of which party is at fault.’ [Citation.]” ); Ralph Korte Construction Co. v. Springfield Mechanical Co., 54 Ill.

2016Barney, 266 Ill.

1995Without question, Peerless and Zoya were aware that members of the general public, like plaintiff, would benefit by the insurance requirement of the lease "in the sense that any injured person would be assured recovery for any loss caused by [Zoya’s] negligence.” (Barney, 266 Ill.

2015Id. at 129 .

2015Id. at 129 .

2016As indicated above, the "other insurance" clause at issue provided: " 'Any insurance we provide with respect to a vehicle you do not own shall be excess over any collectible insurance providing such coverage on a primary basis.' " Ledbetter, 353 S.W.3d at 648 . ¶ 46 After reviewing the "other insurance" clause, the court determined: "[A]n objective examination of the 'excess' language of the Other Insurance clause suggests not just that this language might reasonably be interpreted by an average lay person to mean underinsured coverage was excess to amounts recovered from the tortfeasor ***, i

2016As indicated above, the "other insurance" clause at issue provided: " 'Any insurance we provide with respect to a vehicle you do not own shall be excess over any collectible insurance providing such coverage on a primary basis.' " Ledbetter, 353 S.W.3d at 648 . ¶ 46 After reviewing the "other insurance" clause, the court determined: "[A]n objective examination of the 'excess' language of the Other Insurance clause suggests not just that this language might reasonably be interpreted by an average lay person to mean underinsured coverage was excess to amounts recovered from the tortfeasor ***, i

2015Progressive Premier Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Emiljanowicz, 2013 IL App (1st) 113664 , 991 N.E.2d 352 . ¶ 14 Occidental responds that the trial court's ruling was well reasoned and should be affirmed.

2015Progressive Premier Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Emiljanowicz, 2013 IL App (1st) 113664 , 991 N.E.2d 352 . ¶ 14 Occidental responds that the trial court's ruling was well reasoned and should be affirmed.

2009This court also examined the validity of an insurance clause in Bosio v. Branigar Organization, Inc., 154 Ill.

1989The insurance clause in the instant case is similar to that considered in Bosio v. Branigar Organization, Inc. (1987), 154 Ill.

2008A&A, 259 Ill.

2008A&A, 259 Ill.

2005Illinois Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association v. Boozell , 289 Ill.

2005Illinois Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass’n v. Boozell, 289 Ill.

2004To support its position, plaintiffs rely on Millers Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois v. House , 286 Ill.

2004To support its position, plaintiffs rely on Millers Mutual Insurance Ass’n of Illinois v. House, 286 Ill.

2003The other insurance clause in the Federal excess policy stated: “ ‘If the named insured has in force other professional liability insurance in excess of the limits of liability of the underlying policy (except insurance purchased to apply in excess of the sum of the limits of liability of the underlying policy and the limits of liability of this policy), the insurance afforded by this policy shall not be applicable for a greater proportion of a claim than the applicable limit of liability stated in this policy bears to the total applicable limit of liability of all valid and collectible excess

2003The other insurance clause in the Federal excess policy stated: "If the named insured has in force other professional liability insurance in excess of the limits of liability of the underlying policy (except insurance purchased to apply in excess of the sum of the limits of liability of the underlying policy and the limits of liability of this policy), the insurance afforded by this policy shall not be applicable for a greater proportion of a claim than the applicable limit of liability stated in this policy bears to the total applicable limit of liability of all valid and collectible excess i

2000Grzeszczak , 168 Ill. 2d at 223 .

2000Grzeszczak, 168 Ill. 2d at 223 .

1999Cowan v. Insurance Co. of North America , 22 Ill.

1999Cowan v. Insurance Co. of North America, 22 Ill.

1999Second, the court emphasized *353 that the insurance clause of the FAA requires air carriers to maintain liability insurance sufficient to pay "for bodily injury to, or death of, an individual * * * resulting from the operation or maintenance of the aircraft." 49 U.S.C. § 41112 (a) (1994); Abdullah, 181 F.3d at 375 .

1999Second, the court emphasized that the insurance clause of the FAA requires air carriers to maintain liability insurance sufficient to pay “for bodily injury to, or death of, an individual *** resulting from the operation or maintenance of the aircraft.” 49 U.S.C. § 41112 (a) (1994); Abdullah, 181 F.3d at 375 .

1997Lehman, 265 Ill.

1997Lehman, 265 Ill.

1996Industrial Coatings Group, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 276 Ill.

1996Industrial Coatings Group, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 276 Ill.

1996The appellate court answered "no” to both questions and affirmed denial of summary judgment. 275 Ill.

1996The appellate court answered "no" to both questions and affirmed denial of summary judgment. 275 Ill.App.3d 68 , 211 Ill.Dec. 436 , 655 N.E.2d 465 .

1994(See Dark v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1988), 175 Ill.

1993(Dark v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1988), 175 Ill.

1994Plaintiff cites the Texas case of James Stewart & Co. v. Law (1950), 149 Tex. 392 , 233 S.W.2d 558 , in support of her argument that the insurance requirement was intended for the direct benefit of members of the pubUc who might be injured by the negligent conduct of defendants’ subcontractors.

1994Plaintiff cites the Texas case of James Stewart & Co. v. Law (1950), 149 Tex. 392 , 233 S.W.2d 558 , in support of her argument that the insurance requirement was intended for the direct benefit of members of the pubUc who might be injured by the negligent conduct of defendants’ subcontractors.

1991App. 3d 339, 348 , 330 N.E.2d 540 ) and that a cause of action exists when an insurer breaches his duty of good faith by wrongfully failing to settle an insurance claim within the policy limits.

1982While it is true, as defendant points out, that Debolt did deny a common law tort action for punitive damages arising out of wilful refusal to pay an insurance claim (but see Ledingham v. Blue Cross Plan for Hospital Care of Hospital Service Corp. (1975), 29 Ill.