causal test in Illinois

2015The Luchesi court noted that “[c]ourts have interpreted the causal test under the [Pension] Code as similar to the test under the Act.” Id. at 551 .

2015The Luchesi court noted that “[c]ourts have interpreted the causal test under the [Pension] Code as similar to the test under the Act.” Id. at 551 .

2019The - 13 - appellate court held that Beaman was required to “establish that officer[s] pressured or exerted influence on the prosecutor’s decision or made knowing misstatements upon which the prosecutor relied.” 2017 IL App (4th) 160527, ¶ 58 .

2019The appellate court held that Beaman was required to “establish that officer[s] pressured or exerted influence on the prosecutor’s decision or made knowing misstatements upon which the prosecutor relied.” 2017 IL App (4th) 160527, ¶ 58 .

2026As the court concluded, ”Ford had systematically served a market in [the forum states] for the very vehicles that the plaintiffs allege malfunctioned and injured them in those States.” Id. ¶ 30 Plaintiffs argue that Ford’s relaxation of the causal requirement means that they need only 9 No. 1-25-0614 show that defendants marketed and sold other units of Zantac in Illinois and utilized Illinois as part of their nationwide distribution efforts.

2025This comports with our interpretation of Robbins, namely, that the Robbins court was primarily concerned with the appellate court’s decision to 3 While the Board suggests that Kelly v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 210483 , supports its interpretation, that case concerned the source of the plaintiff’s disability, not the causal analysis at issue here, and its discussion of Robbins occurred in that context. 4 The only case which even arguably addresses the Robbins court’s causation analysis is Marquardt v. City of Des Plaines, 2018

2025This comports with our interpretation of Robbins, namely, that the Robbins court was primarily concerned with the appellate court’s decision to 3 While the Board suggests that Kelly v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 210483 , supports its interpretation, that case concerned the source of the plaintiff’s disability, not the causal analysis at issue here, and its discussion of Robbins occurred in that context. 4 The only case which even arguably addresses the Robbins court’s causation analysis is Marquardt v. City of Des Plaines, 2018

1996In any event, the causal analysis, for which Continental contends, is only part of the equation; in determining whether an exclusion applies, a court must regard "the rules of contract construction, and not tort principles.” See Oakley Transport, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance Co., 271 Ill.

1996App. 3d 716, 725 , 648 N.E.2d 1099 (1995).