cooperation clause in Illinois

2025See Waste Management, Inc., 144 Ill. 2d at 191 (observing that the “basic purpose of a cooperation clause is to protect the insurer’s interests 14 1-23-2422 and to prevent collusion between the insured and the injured party” (Emphasis in original)).

2021“While an insured has no obligation to assist the insurer in any effort to defeat recovery of a proper claim, the cooperation clause does obligate the insured 13 No. 1-21-0600 to disclose all of the facts within his knowledge and otherwise to aid the insurer in its determination of coverage under the policy.” Waste Management, 144 Ill. 2d at 204 ; Shaikh, 405 Ill.

2017To avoid its responsibilities under the policy, an insurer must demonstrate that it was “substantially prejudice[d],” i.e., that it was “actually hampered in its defense by the violation of the cooperation clause.” Id. at 499-500 . ¶ 27 In this case, the circuit court’s ruling that Direct Auto established a prima facie case that Ms. Reed breached the cooperation clause of her policy is not challenged on appeal.

2017To avoid its responsibilities under the policy, an insurer must demonstrate that it was “substantially prejudice[d],” i.e., that it was “actually hampered in its defense by the violation of the cooperation clause.” Id. at 499-500 . ¶ 27 In this case, the circuit court’s ruling that Direct Auto established a prima facie case that Ms. Reed breached the cooperation clause of her policy is not challenged on appeal.

2010See Horton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 125 Ill.

2010See Horton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 125 Ill.

1982App.2d 12 , 199 N.E.2d 423 , the court considered an automobile insurance policy containing a cooperation clause which the insurer invoked to avoid recovery by the minor child of a deceased insured.

1982App. 2d 12 , 199 N.E.2d 423 , the court considered an automobile insurance policy containing a cooperation clause which the insurer invoked to avoid recovery by the minor child of a deceased insured.

2007Minn. 1992) (deeming the rationale of the Waste Management court with respect to the attorney-client privilege as “fundamentally unsound” and finding the court’s interpretation of the work-product doctrine “inconsistent” with local authority that extends the work-product doctrine to documents prepared in anticipation of all previous litigation); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 716 So. 2d 340, 342-43 (Fla. App. 1998) (rejecting the Waste Management court’s interpretation of the cooperation-clause exception to the attorney-client privilege on the grounds of

2007Minn. 1992) (deeming the rationale of the Waste Management court with respect to the attorney-client privilege as “fundamentally unsound” and finding the court’s interpretation of the work-product doctrine “inconsistent” with local authority that extends the work-product doctrine to documents prepared in anticipation of all previous litigation); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 716 So. 2d 340, 342-43 (Fla. App. 1998) (rejecting the Waste Management court’s interpretation of the cooperation-clause exception to the attorney-client privilege on the grounds of

2010We determine that the documentation incorporated in Gottardo’s affidavit is not hearsay, as the materials were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, but rather to show that plaintiff had notice that State Farm was requesting documents and invoking the policy’s cooperation clause. “ ‘Hearsay evidence, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.’ [Citation.]” People v. Shaw, 386 Ill.

2010We determine that the documentation incorporated in Gottardo’s affidavit is not hearsay, as the materials were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, but rather to show that plaintiff had notice that State Farm was requesting documents and invoking the policy’s cooperation clause. “ ‘Hearsay evidence, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.’ [Citation.]” People v. Shaw, 386 Ill.

2010See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Pekin, 2 Ill.

2010See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Pekin, 2 Ill.

2006Although such information may be privileged because it is legal advice given by the general counsel to the corporation about whether its actions could result in liability (see, e.g., Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. van Straaten Gallery, Inc., 189 Ill. 2d 579, 584 , 727 N.E.2d 240, 243 (2000)), Trans Union, in agreeing to a policy with such particular language, has agreed to share this information with the Underwriters under these circumstances.

2006Although such information may be privileged because it is legal advice given by the general counsel to the corporation about whether its actions could result in liability (see, e.g., Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. van Straaten Gallery, Inc., 189 Ill. 2d 579, 584 , 727 N.E.2d 240, 243 (2000)), Trans Union, in agreeing to a policy with such particular language, has agreed to share this information with the Underwriters under these circumstances.

2006Cf. Waste Management, 144 Ill. 2d at 192 , 579 N.E.2d at 327-28 (cooperation clause required insured to A>give all such information and assistance as the insurers may reasonably require,=@ but made no mention of coverage); State v. Hydrite Chemical Co., 220 Wis. 2d 51, 72 , 582 N.W.2d 411, 420 (App. Ct. 1998) (cooperation clause required insured to Acooperate with the [insurance] company@ in suits, but made no mention of coverage); Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Tonka Corp., 140 F.R.D. 381, 386 (D.

2006Cf. Waste Management, 144 Ill. 2d at 192 , 579 N.E.2d at 327-28 (cooperation clause required insured to “ ‘give all such information and assistance as the insurers may reasonably require,’ ” but made no mention of coverage); State v. Hydrite Chemical Co., 220 Wis. 2d 51, 72 , 582 N.W2d 411, 420 (App. 1998) (cooperation clause required insured to “cooperate with the [insurance] company” in suits, but made no mention of coverage); Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Tonka Corp., 140 F.R.D. 381, 386 (D.

2006An accident victim may not supply the cooperation that an insured fails to give his insurer, and is completely powerless to remedy the insured's breach of the cooperation clause." Cheek, 34 Ill.App.3d at 218 , 340 N.E.2d 331 .

2006An accident victim may not supply the cooperation that an insured fails to give his insurer, and is completely powerless to remedy the insured's breach of the cooperation clause." Cheek, 34 Ill.App.3d at 218 , 340 N.E.2d 331 .

2025See Perry v. Salseda, 34 Ill.

2021App. 3d 333, 336 (1993) (citing United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., 144 Ill. 2d 64, 73 (1991)). ¶ 26 The basis for the trial court’s decision in the case at bar was its finding that Under Construction breached the insurance policy’s cooperation clause with respect to plaintiff’s investigation of Szymanski’s claim.

2021See Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 296 Ill.