consumer fraud claim in Illinois

2006Perona, 292 Ill.App.3d at 68 , 225 Ill.Dec. 868 , 684 N.E.2d 859 .

2006Perona, 292 Ill.App.3d at 68 , 225 Ill.Dec. 868 , 684 N.E.2d 859 .

2006Krautsack I, 329 Ill.

2006Krautsack I, 329 Ill.App.3d at 679 , 263 Ill.Dec. 373 , 768 N.E.2d 133 .

2006In addition, it reversed the trial court’s denial of Tri-G’s request for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act and remanded the cause to the trial court to allow Tri-G to request attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the consumer fraud claim. 353 Ill.

2006In addition, it reversed the trial court's denial of Tri-G's request for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act and remanded the cause to the trial court to allow Tri-G to request attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the consumer fraud claim. 353 Ill.App.3d at 224-26 , 288 Ill.Dec. 580 , 817 N.E.2d 1230 .

2006App. 3d 969, 973 , 773 N.E.2d 1199 (2002) (plaintiff failed to meet burden of showing present injury for breach of warranty claim where evidence showed she sold the car for fair market value); Kelly v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 308 Ill.

2006App. 3d 969 , 773 N.E.2d 1199 (2002) (plaintiff failed to meet burden of showing present injury for breach of warranty claim where evidence showed he sold the car for fair market value); Kelly v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 308 Ill.

2006McGuire, 314 Ill.

2006McGuire, 314 Ill.

2006As Cosmo correctly asserts, in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517, 525 , 805 N.E.2d 213 (2004), our supreme court held that, since the deceptive advertising at issue did not deceive the plaintiff, no claim under the Consumer Fraud Act could be maintained.

2006As Cosmo correctly asserts, in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517, 525 , 805 N.E.2d 213 (2004), our supreme court held that, since the deceptive advertising at issue did not deceive the plaintiff, no claim under the Consumer Fraud Act could be maintained.

2006See Avery, 216 Ill. 2d at 196-97 (no showing of actual damage in a consumer fraud claim where plaintiffs testimony established he sold the car for its fair market value despite the presence of “non-OEM” parts); Valenti v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 332 Ill.

2006See Avery, 216 Ill. 2d at 196-97 (no showing of actual damage in a consumer fraud claim where plaintiff=s testimony established he sold the car for its fair market value despite the presence of non-OEM parts); Valenti v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 332 Ill.

2005As in the circuit court, the appellate court held that a common question of fact predominated for the class based upon State Farm’s uniform practice of specifying non-OEM parts and providing its insureds with a written estimate and a “Quality Replacement Parts” brochure: “In regard to the consumer-fraud claim, the record contained evidence that State Farm engaged in an ongoing course of conduct nationwide, in which it specified inferior non-OEM parts whenever those parts were cheaper and available, that State Farm knew those parts were inferior, that State Farm did not inform its policyholders

2005As in the circuit court, the appellate court held that a common question of fact predominated for the class based upon State Farm's uniform practice of specifying non-OEM parts and providing its insureds with a written estimate and a "Quality Replacement Parts" brochure: "In regard to the consumer-fraud claim, the record contained evidence that State Farm engaged in an ongoing course of conduct nationwide, in which it specified inferior non-OEM parts whenever those parts were cheaper and available, that State Farm knew those parts were inferior, that State Farm did not inform its policyholders

2003App. 3d 719, 732 , 680 N.E.2d 416 (1997)) and this entitlement is limited to only those fees incurred by the plaintiff that were for work specifically related to the consumer fraud claim.

2003App. 3d 719, 732 , 680 N.E.2d 416 (1997)) and this entitlement is limited to only those fees incurred by the plaintiff that were for work specifically related to the consumer fraud claim.

2003Schorsch v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc., 286 Ill.

2003Schorsch v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc. , 286 Ill.

2002Jackson, 197 Ill.2d at 50 , 258 Ill.Dec. 79 , 755 N.E.2d 462 .

2002Jackson, 197 Ill. 2d at 50 .

1992App. 3d at 667 , quoting Spengler v. V & R Marathon, Inc. (1987), 162 Ill.

1990Stat. 1987, ch. 1211/2, par. 262.) Although a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act differs from a common law fraud action, a consumer fraud claim “must be pleaded with the same specificity that has always been a prerequisite to an action for common law fraud. [Citation.]” Spengler v. V&R Marathon, Inc. (1987), 162 Ill.

2024Tri-Plex Technical Services, Ltd. v. Jon-Don LLC, 2024 IL 129183 , ¶ 26.

2024Tri-Plex Technical Services, Ltd. v. Jon-Don LLC, 2024 IL 129183 , ¶ 26.

2023Id. - 36 - Nos. 1-21-1097 & 1-22-0308 (cons.) ¶ 90 Here, Remprex’s first amended complaint alleged that Lloyd’s engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices by creating through its advertising the expectation among prospective insureds that media liability claims would be covered; selling policies purporting to cover media liability; and then arbitrarily and without basis denying coverage for such claims.

2023Id. at 179 ; Pack v. Maslikiewicz, 2019 IL App (1st) 182447, ¶ 114 . ¶ 18 When a plaintiff’s breach of contract and consumer fraud counts rely on the same facts, the consumer fraud claim is “merely a breach of contract count clothed as a [consumer fraud count].” Sklodowski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 358 Ill.