policy contained clause in Illinois

2006Dairyland, 208 Ill.

2006Dairyland, 208 Ill.

2015Id. at 454 .

2015Under the terms of his commercial general liability policy, he was not covered for bodily injury resulting from his own intentional conduct; however, the policy contained an exception for " ' "bodily injury" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.' " Id. at 451 . ¶ 43 The insurer argued that "the duty to defend must be based solely upon the allegations of the underlying complaint" and that the court could not consider the insured's own pleading raising self-defense.

1943Co., 297 Ill. 592 , the policy contained a clause of incontestability after one year from the date of issue, if premiums were paid.

1923In Weber v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 284 Ill. 326 , the policy contained a clause as follows: “And said policy shall not take effect until the same shall be issued and delivered by the said company and the first premium paid thereon in full while my health is in the same condition as described in this application.” It was contended by appellee in that case that by reason of this clause the policy was not in force until it was actually delivered during the lifetime and good health of the insured, whereas the appellant contended that as the premium was paid in full on March 8, the co

1910Co. v. Johnson, 77 Ill. 598 , that, where the owner of a house insured the same, and the policy contained a clause, “loss, if any, payable to A, as she shall make appear,” and it appeared that A’s only interest was that of a mortgagee for a debt due her from the assured, the assured had a legal right to sue for a loss in his own name, as the whole loss was not payable to A but only to the extent of her mortgage.

1904Co. v. Stanton, supra, it was said (p. 356): “The interest only of the mortgagor was insured, but the policy contained a clause that in case of loss the money should be paid to McClellan, the mortgagee.

1898Co., 93 U. S. 284 , in which the policy contained the clause, ‘shall die by suicide, sane or insane,’ and which case is cited with approval in the Wieting case, supra, by the Supreme, Court, Davis, J., of the Supreme Court of the U. S., said: “For the purposes of this suit, it is enough to say that the policy was rendered void if the insured was conscious of the physical nature of his act, and intended by it to cause his death, although at the time he was incapable of judging between right and wrong or of understanding the moral consequences of what he was doing.” To the same effect are the fo

1898Co., 34 Wis. 389 ; Union, etc., Ins.

1887Co. v. Jackson, 83 Ill. 302 , the policy contained this clause: “ If an application, survey, plan or description of the property insured is referred to in the policy it shall be a warranty by the assured, and any false representation by the assured as to the condition of the property or any omission to make known every fact material to the risk, or if the interest of the assured in the property, whether as owner * * * be not truly stated in the policy, it shall be void.” The assured testified she stated to the agent the house stood on leased ground.