Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krusinski Construction Co. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurancegreen2 sentences2020“Primary insurance is coverage whereby liability attaches immediately upon the happening of the occurrence that gives rise to liability. [Citation.] Primary policies generally impose on the insurer a duty of defense separate from the duty to indemnify the insured against the claim. *** Rather than providing a duty to defend, most excess policies require the excess insurer to indemnify the insured for the costs of the defense as part of the ‘ultimate net loss’ against which the policy insures.” Krusinski Construction Co. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 326 Ill. 2018“Primary insurance is coverage whereby liability attaches immediately upon the happening of the occurrence that gives rise to liability. [Citation.] Primary policies generally impose on the insurer a duty of defense separate from the duty to indemnify the insured against the claim. *** Rather than providing a duty to defend, most excess policies require the excess insurer to indemnify the insured for the costs of the defense as part of the ‘ultimate net loss’ against which the policy insures.” Krusinski Construction Co. v. Northbrook Property & 12 No. 1-16-3398 Casualty Insurance Co., 326 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
KAJIMA CONST. SERVS. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.green1 sentence2022See Kajima, 227 Ill. 2d at 107 ; Central Mutual, 2014 IL App (1st) 133145 , ¶ 9. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zurich Insurance v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. , 145 Ill. 2001Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 145 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Central Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2022See Kajima, 227 Ill. 2d at 107 ; Central Mutual, 2014 IL App (1st) 133145 , ¶ 9. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Conway v. Country Casualty Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1986(Conway v. Country Casualty Insurance Co. (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 388 , 442 N.E.2d 245 .) In contrast, courts have recognized that excess policies seldom provide a separate duty to defend. 1986(Conway v. Country Casualty Insurance Co. (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 388 , 442 N.E.2d 245 .) In contrast, courts have recognized that excess policies seldom provide a separate duty to defend. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Brown
green
2 sentences1973App.2d 134 , 251 N.E.2d 349 and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. v. Brown, 35 Ill.App.2d 43 , 181 N.E.2d 191 , Illinois has adopted the position that if the exclusion is applicable to any of the insureds, coverage is not afforded another insured where the action is based on the same facts but not based on the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1973App.2d 134 , 251 N.E.2d 349 and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. v. Brown, 35 Ill.App.2d 43 , 181 N.E.2d 191 , Illinois has adopted the position that if the exclusion is applicable to any of the insureds, coverage is not afforded another insured where the action is based on the same facts but not based on the Workmen’s Compensation Act. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
MIDWEST CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT CO., INC. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.
green
2 sentences1973Consequently in New York, the workmen’s compensation exclusion applies only to an insured against whom a claim for workmen’s compensation is asserted, However, in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 79 Ill.App.2d 457 , 223 N.E.2d 851 , Midwest Contractors Equipment Co. v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 112 Ill. 1973App.2d 134 , 251 N.E.2d 349 and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. v. Brown, 35 Ill.App.2d 43 , 181 N.E.2d 191 , Illinois has adopted the position that if the exclusion is applicable to any of the insureds, coverage is not afforded another insured where the action is based on the same facts but not based on the Workmen’s Compensation Act. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
neutral
2 sentences1973Consequently in New York, the workmen’s compensation exclusion applies only to an insured against whom a claim for workmen’s compensation is asserted, However, in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 79 Ill.App.2d 457 , 223 N.E.2d 851 , Midwest Contractors Equipment Co. v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 112 Ill. 1973Consequently in New York, the workmen’s compensation exclusion applies only to an insured against whom a claim for workmen’s compensation is asserted, However, in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 79 Ill.App.2d 457 , 223 N.E.2d 851 , Midwest Contractors Equipment Co. v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 112 Ill. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.