11 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dix Mutual Insurance v. LaFramboisegreen2 sentences2021See Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 149 Ill. 2d 314, 319 (1992); Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. FT Mortgage Cos., 341 Ill. 2017See id. | 2 | 2 |
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Northern Heritage Builders, L.L.C.green2 sentences2014American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northern Heritage Builders, L.L.C., 404 Ill. 2014American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northern Heritage Builders, L.L.C., 404 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
North American Insurance v. Kemper National Insurancegreen2 sentences2004App. 3d at 44 , citing North American Insurance Co. v. Kemper National Insurance Co. , 325 Ill. 2004App. 3d at 44 , citing North American Insurance Co. v. Kemper National Insurance Co., 325 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Bost v. Paulson's Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2001“Subrogation has been defined as the substitution of another person in the place of a claimant whose rights he succeeds in relation to the debt or claim or asserted which has been paid by him involuntarily.” Bost v. Paulson's Enterprises, Inc. , 36 Ill. 2001“Subrogation has been defined as the substitution of another person in the place of a claimant whose rights he succeeds [to] in relation to the debt or claim or asserted which has been paid by him involuntarily.” Bost v. Paulson’s Enterprises, Inc., 36 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. FT Mortgage Co.green1 sentence2021See Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 149 Ill. 2d 314, 319 (1992); Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. FT Mortgage Cos., 341 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Paytongreen1 sentence2021See Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Payton, 2017 IL App (1st) 160305, ¶ 30 (finding that under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, the prior homeowners’ interest in the property was subordinate to the mortgage assignee’s interest, even though the ownership of the home had allegedly been transferred to the current owners through a forged deed, where the assignor lender had paid off the prior home owners’ home loans and had extinguished the prior home owners’ mortgages on the subject property and where to allow the prior homeowners to take the subject property without a mortgage lien atta | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Home Insurance v. Cincinnati Insurance
green
2 sentences2006The elements of an equitable subrogation claim are as follows: "(1) the defendant carrier must be primarily liable to the insured for a loss under a policy of insurance; (2) the plaintiff carrier must be secondarily liable to the insured for the same loss under its policy; and (3) the plaintiff carrier must have discharged its liability to the insured and at the same time extinguished the liability of the defendant carrier." (Emphasis in original.) Home Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d at 323 . 2006The elements of an equitable subrogation claim are as follows: “(1) the defendant carrier must be primarily liable to the insured for a loss under a policy of insurance; (2) the plaintiff carrier must be secondarily liable to the insured for the same loss under its policy; and (3) the plaintiff carrier must have discharged its liability to the insured and at the same time extinguished the liability of the defendant carrier.” (Emphasis in original.) Home Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d at 323 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Home Insurance v. Cincinnati Insurance
green
2 sentences2004The appellate court correctly noted the elements of an equitable subrogation claim as follows: (1) the defendant carrier must be primarily liable to the insured for a loss under a policy of insurance; (2) the plaintiff carrier must be secondarily liable to the insured for the same loss under its policy; and (3) the plaintiff carrier must have discharged its liability to the insured and at the same time extinguished the liability of the defendant carrier. 345 Ill. 2004Here, however, the appellate court found that because the Home and Cincinnati policies did not insure the “same risk,” they therefore did not cover the “same loss” for purposes of an equitable subrogation claim. 345 Ill. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Aames Capital Corp. v. Interstate Bank of Oak Forest
green
2 sentences2019“Equitable subrogation is a creature of chancery that is utilized to prevent unjust enrichment.” Aames Capital, 315 Ill. 2019As noted, “[e]quitable subrogation is a creature of chancery that is utilized to prevent unjust enrichment.” Aames Capital, 315 Ill. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Feret v. Schillerstrom
green
2 sentences2017App. 3d 534 , 539-40, 300 Ill.Dec. 449 , 844 N.E.2d 447 (2006). ¶ 29 Next, Friedler argues that, even if the funds were an "asset" of Cannon, the funds should have been awarded to Friedler under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. 2017App. 3d 534 , 539-40, 300 Ill.Dec. 449 , 844 N.E.2d 447 (2006). ¶ 29 Next, Friedler argues that, even if the funds were an "asset" of Cannon, the funds should have been awarded to Friedler under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.