steadfast motion (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

steadfast motion in Illinois

7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2023 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Singergreen
wva · 1978 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013See, e.g., Estate of Ford v. Ford, 82 P.3d 747, 754 (Cal. 2004); Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Singer, 250 S.E.2d 369, 373-74 (W.

11
In Re Estate of Fordgreen
cal · 2004 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013See, e.g., Estate of Ford v. Ford, 82 P.3d 747, 754 (Cal. 2004); Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Singer, 250 S.E.2d 369, 373-74 (W.

11
General Agents Insurance Co. of America, Inc. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co.green
ill · 2005 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Applying the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding in General Agents Insurance Co. of America, Inc. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., 215 Ill. 2d 146, 166 , 828 N.E.2d 1092 (2005) (General Agents), that an insurer cannot recover defense costs paid pursuant to a reservation of rights absent a provision entitling it to such relief, the court concluded that, because the insurance policy in this case likewise contained no provision allowing Steadfast to recoup defense costs, Steadfast could not recover the costs it expended defending Caremark in the underlying actions.

2007Applying the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding in General Agents Insurance Co. of America, Inc. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., 215 Ill. 2d 146, 166 , 828 N.E.2d 1092 (2005) (General Agents), that an insurer cannot recover defense costs paid pursuant to a reservation of rights absent a provision entitling it to such relief, the court concluded that, because the insurance policy in this case likewise contained no provision allowing Steadfast to recoup defense costs, Steadfast could not recover the costs it expended defending Caremark in the underlying actions.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
DeHart v. DeHart green
ill · 2013
2 sentences

2014DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 53 .

2014DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶ 53 .

22014–2014
People v. Bynum green
illappct · 1994
2 sentences

2002Bynum , 257 Ill.

2002Bynum, 257 Ill.

22002–2002
Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. green
illappct · 2022
2 sentences

2023Continuing Claims Exclusion ¶ 185 SPCA also asserts on appeal that the “continuing claim exclusion” in the Steadfast Policy does not apply because the language is “hopelessly ambiguous” and because the claims alleged by Novak in his 2007 IDHR Claim were distinct, different instances of discrimination from the claims made in the 2009 Novak Counterclaims. ¶ 186 When construing a provision in an insurance policy that excludes or limits coverage, we read it narrowly; “the applicability of the exclusion [provision] must be clear and free from doubt.” Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v.

2023Continuing Claims Exclusion ¶ 185 SPCA also asserts on appeal that the “continuing claim exclusion” in the Steadfast Policy does not apply because the language is “hopelessly ambiguous” and because the claims alleged by Novak in his 2007 IDHR Claim were distinct, different instances of discrimination from the claims made in the 2009 Novak Counterclaims. ¶ 186 When construing a provision in an insurance policy that excludes or limits coverage, we read it narrowly; “the applicability of the exclusion [provision] must be clear and free from doubt.” Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v.

12023–2023
Steadfast Insurance v. Caremark RX, Inc. green
illappct · 2005
1 sentence

2007Steadfast I, 359 Ill.

12007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (4) IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 7 (2002–2023) OH 6 (1990–2020) LA 4 (1969–2015) PA 3 (2004–2016) AR 2 (2006–2008) VT 2 (1982–1985) NE 2 (1992–1997) NJ 2 (1960–1977) RI 2 (2023–2026) TN 2 (1999–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check