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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Transportation Insurancegreen2 sentences2015We do not find this argument persuasive. ¶ 22 Under Illinois law, there are three elements required to trigger advertising injury coverage: (1) Compeve “must have been engaged in advertising activity during the policy 9 No. 1-14-2508 period when the injury occurred”; (2) Microsoft’s allegations “must raise a potential for liability under one of the offenses listed in the policies”; and (3) “there must be a causal connection between the alleged injury and the advertising activity.” Lexmark International, Inc. v. Transportation Insurance Co., 327 Ill. 2015We do not find this argument persuasive. ¶ 22 Under Illinois law, there are three elements required to trigger advertising injury coverage: (1) Compeve “must have been engaged in advertising activity during the policy period when the injury occurred”; (2) Microsoft’s allegations “must raise a potential for liability under one of the offenses listed in the policies”; and (3) “there must be a causal connection between the alleged injury and the advertising activity.” Lexmark International, Inc. v. Transportation Insurance Co., 327 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc. v. The Continental Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 94 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1996); Winklevoss Consultants, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 991 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. 2001See, e.g. , Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co. , 94 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1996); Winklevoss Consultants, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. , 991 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winklevoss Consultants, Inc. v. Federal Insurance
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 94 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1996); Winklevoss Consultants, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 991 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. 2001See, e.g. , Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co. , 94 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1996); Winklevoss Consultants, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. , 991 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Triumph Community Bank v. IRED Elmhurst LLC
green
1 sentence2024App. 3d 1003, 1028 (2009) (‘forfeiture is a limitation on the parties, not on the court, and the court may overlook forfeiture where necessary to - 14 - 1-23-1631 obtain a just result or maintain a sound body of precedent’).” IRED Elmhurst, LLC, 2021 IL App (2d) 200108 , ¶¶ 48-49. ¶ 41 Turning to the merits, WestRock argues that, beginning with a case from Arizona, Illinois courts apply a causal connection test to the term “related” when that term is undefined in an insurance policy. ¶ 42 In Arizona Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme, 735 P.2d 451 (1987), the Arizona Proper | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme
green
2 sentences2024App. 3d 1003, 1028 (2009) (‘forfeiture is a limitation on the parties, not on the court, and the court may overlook forfeiture where necessary to - 14 - 1-23-1631 obtain a just result or maintain a sound body of precedent’).” IRED Elmhurst, LLC, 2021 IL App (2d) 200108 , ¶¶ 48-49. ¶ 41 Turning to the merits, WestRock argues that, beginning with a case from Arizona, Illinois courts apply a causal connection test to the term “related” when that term is undefined in an insurance policy. ¶ 42 In Arizona Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme, 735 P.2d 451 (1987), the Arizona Proper 2024Helme, 735 P.2d at 453 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Aryainejad v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence2013Aryainejad, 278 Ill. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.