pro rata clause in Illinois

1983The language of this clause, known as a pro rata clause, is identical to that disputed in Glidden v. Farmers Automobile Insurance Association (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 330 , 312 N.E.2d 247 .

1983The language of this clause, known as a pro rata clause, is identical to that disputed in Glidden v. Farmers Automobile Insurance Association (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 330 , 312 N.E.2d 247 .

1994For instance, it is generally found that a policy conditioned by an excess clause, or an excess-escape clause, is not such 'other available insurance’ as will activate the pro-rata clause of another policy ***.” Putnam, 48 Ill. 2d at 80 , 269 N.E.2d at 101 .

1994For instance, it is generally found that a policy conditioned by an excess clause, or an excess-escape clause, is not such 'other available insurance’ as will activate the pro-rata clause of another policy ***.” Putnam, 48 Ill. 2d at 80 , 269 N.E.2d at 101 .

2007Ohio Casualty, 373 Ill.

1970(Jensen v. New Amsterdam Insurance Co., 65 Ill.

1970Shortly after that decision, the Appellate Court for the Second District resolved a conflict between identical provisions in toto where the applicable clauses were a pro-rata clause in one policy and an excess clause in the other. ( Jensen v. New Amsterdam Insurance Co., 65 Ill.

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Eq. 592;) Michigan (Jennings v. Moore, 83 Mich. 231 ;) and Texas, (Salmon v. Downs, 55 Tex. 243 .) Many other opinions appear in-the books in which the view of the court on this question is hinted at but where it was not directly before the court.

1936Eq. 592;) Michigan (Jennings v. Moore, 83 Mich. 231 ;) and Texas, (Salmon v. Downs, 55 Tex. 243 .) Many other opinions appear in-the books in which the view of the court on this question is hinted at but where it was not directly before the court.

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1936Omitting those cases where the question was not directly passed upon or the statements in opinions touching the question were obiter dicta, the courts adopting the pro tanto rule, where the matter was directly involved, are, so far as our investigation has disclosed: Alabama, (Cullum v. Erwin, supra;) Georgia, (statute;) Indiana, (Parkhurst v. Watertown Steam Engine Co. 107 Ind. 594 ;) Virginia, (McClintic v. Wise’s Admrs. supra;) Oklahoma, (Lawson v. Warren, 34 Okla. 94 , 124 Pac. 46, 48 ;) Louisiana, (Salzman v. His Creditors, 2 Robins. 241;) and Ohio, (Anderson v. Sharp, 44 Ohio St. 260 , 6

1934The appellants cite and rely upon two Minnesota cases, Kerr v. Minnesota Mutual Ass’n, 39 Minn. 174 , and Reiter v. Knights and Ladies of Security, 131 id. 82.

1911The pro tanto rule was enforced in Vansant v. Allmon, 23 Ill. 30 , and Flower v. Elwood, 66 Ill. 438 , where purchase money mortgages were involved.

1911The pro tanto rule was enforced in Vansant v. Allmon, 23 Ill. 30 , and Flower v. Elwood, 66 Ill. 438 , where purchase money mortgages were involved.