exclusion clause in Illinois

2024“Although the United States Constitution prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules ‘that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote,’ well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by other factors, such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Id. (quoting Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 ).

2024“Although the United States Constitution prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules ‘that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote,’ well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by other factors, such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Id. (quoting Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326 ).

2011In the alternative, United National argues that exclusion “n” of the policy precludes coverage, where the exclusion provides, “Damages claimed for any loss, cost or expense incurred by you or others for the loss of use, withdrawal, recall, inspection, repair, replacement, adjustment, removal or disposal of: (2) ‘Your Work[.]’ if such product, work, or property is withdrawn or recalled from the market or from use by any person or organization because of a known or suspected defect, deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in it.” In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin Insulatio

2011In the alternative, United National argues that exclusion “n” of the policy precludes coverage, where the exclusion provides, “Damages claimed for any loss, cost or expense incurred by you or others for the loss of use, withdrawal, recall, inspection, repair, replacement, adjustment, removal or disposal of: (2) ‘Your Work[.]’ if such product, work, or property is withdrawn or recalled from the market or from use by any person or organization because of a known or suspected defect, deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in it.” In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin Insulatio

2018Holmes , 547 U.S. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 ; McCullough , 2015 IL App (2d) 121364 , ¶ 104, 395 Ill.Dec. 124 , 38 N.E.3d 1 .

2015While the Constitution prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules “that serve no legitimate purpose or that - 36 - 2015 IL App (2d) 121364 are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote,” other, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by other factors, such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.

2012Cowan, 22 Ill.App.3d at 886-87 , 318 N.E.2d 315 .

2012Cowan, 22 Ill.App.3d at 886-87 , 318 N.E.2d 315 .

2008Pruitt, 177 Ill.

2008Pruitt, 177 Ill.

2007To determine whether property is in the care, custody or control of an insured so as to preclude liability under such an exclusion clause, Illinois courts employ a two-pronged test. -6- 1-05-0267 "If the property damaged is within the possessory control of the insured at the time of the loss and is a necessary element of the work performed, the property is considered to be in the care, custody, or control of the insured." Caisson Co., 151 Ill.

2007“If the property damaged is within the possessory control of the insured at the time of the loss and is a necessary element of the work performed, the property is considered to be in the care, custody, or control of the insured.” Caisson Co., 151 Ill.

2006Thommes, 641 N.W.2d at 883 .

2006Thommes, 641 N.W.2d at 883 .

2003Holmes, 131 Ill.

2003Holmes , 131 Ill.

2000In August 1999, Fisher and Harrah's moved to reconsider the grant of summary judgment, arguing that Fisher could be both Barnes' bailee and agent and asked the circuit court to follow a factually similar case from New Jersey, Scott v. Salerno , 688 A.2d 614 , 297 N.J.

2000In August 1999, Fisher and Harrah's moved to reconsider the grant of summary judgment, arguing that Fisher could be both Barnes' bailee and agent and asked the circuit court to follow a factually similar case from New Jersey, Scott v. Salerno , 688 A.2d 614 , 297 N.J.

1998Seck, 225 Ill.App.3d at 404 , 167 Ill.Dec. 636 , 587 N.E.2d 1251 .

1998Seeck, 225 Ill.

1998Mildly stated, it does not comport with the usual understanding to say that every time one person wrongfully obtains property from another and thus becomes legally obligated to restore it, he has succeeded in obtaining a loan from his victim. [First National Bank, 424 F.2d at 316 .] In the words of the Eighth Circuit: 'It is not conceivable to us that any disinterested banker, insurance underwriter, or lawyer would construe the word "loan," as used in the exclusion clause of this indemnity bond, to cover the obligation imposed by law to reimburse a bank for money or credit obtained through the

1998Mildly stated, it does not comport with the usual understanding to say that every time one person wrongfully obtains property from another and thus becomes legally obligated to restore it, he has succeeded in obtaining a loan from his victim. [First National Bank, 424 F.2d at 316 .] In the words of the Eighth Circuit: 'It is not conceivable to us that any disinterested banker, insurance underwriter, or lawyer would construe the word "loan," as used in the exclusion clause of this indemnity bond, to cover the obligation imposed by law to reimburse a bank for money or credit obtained through the

1995(Gibraltar Casualty Co. v. Sargent & Lundy (1990), 214 Ill.

1995(Gibraltar Casualty Co. v. Sargent & Lundy (1991), 214 Ill.

2023Id. at 444 .

2021Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, we cannot conclude that the professional services exclusions apply to all of the factual allegations of negligent conduct asserted against the insureds in the underlying lawsuits. ¶ 34 “An exclusion clause denying coverage will be applied only if its applicability is clear and free from doubt.” Founders Insurance Co. v. Sheikh, 2017 IL App (1st) 170176, ¶ 12 .

2021The specific policy language states that State Farm does not insure for any loss caused by “water that leaks or flows from plumbing, heating, air conditioning or other equipment (except fire protective systems) caused by freezing unless: (1) you do your best to maintain heat in the building or structure.” (Emphasis added.) To define this standard, we must interpret the meaning of phrase “you do your best to maintain heat in the building or structure.” ¶ 31 “The rules for construction of an insurance contract are well established.” Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Iles, 2013 IL App (5th) 120485, ¶

2020Applying the policy’s exclusion and the exception together, our appellate court held that Marcus’s injury did not arise out of the insured’s business pursuit (babysitting), and that the exception for “activities which are ordinarily incident to nonbusiness pursuits” applied. ¶ 41 In so holding, our appellate court determined that “[t]he fact that the injury occurred on business premises is not conclusive,” and that “the exception applies where the activity [that led to the injury] is not incident to a business purpose.” Moore, 103 Ill.

2016National Union Fire Insurance Co., 811 S.W.2d at 555 . ¶ 20 The Liquidator’s argument that Claimants’ characterization of mold as a pollutant in their underlying negligence lawsuit is further evidence that the Exclusion included mold injuries is not persuasive.

2012App.3d 493 , 299 Ill.Dec. 916 , 842 N.E.2d 1268 (2006), as authority that the conviction of the insured of a criminal offense or a finding of liability for tortious conduct underlying the civil claim does not automatically bar the insured from contending that his conduct was not intentional for purposes of an exclusion clause. ¶ 37 In Cowan , the insured got into a car accident, and in the course of an argument that followed the accident, the insured pushed the other driver, causing him to fall and fracture his leg.

2012App.3d 493 , 299 Ill.Dec. 916 , 842 N.E.2d 1268 (2006), as authority that the conviction of the insured of a criminal offense or a finding of liability for tortious conduct underlying the civil claim does not automatically bar the insured from contending that his conduct was not intentional for purposes of an exclusion clause. ¶ 37 In Cowan , the insured got into a car accident, and in the course of an argument that followed the accident, the insured pushed the other driver, causing him to fall and fracture his leg.

2012Citing Barrett, the court noted that, “[w]hile the fact that the defendant has made restitution is no defense to the charge of theft, it is a factor which is relevant in determining the absence of the requisite felonious intent.” Id. at 490 .

2005Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 153 F.3d at 924 .