(740 ILCS 35/3) (from Ch. 29, par. 63) Sec. 3. This Act does not apply to construction bonds or insurance contracts or
agreements. (Source: P.A. 77-1629.)
Braye v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 676 N.E.2d 1295 (Ill. 1997). “” 740 ILCS 35/3 (West 1994). In Capua, this court confirmed the legislative purpose set forth in Davis and further determined that section 3 deals with an additional protective interest— the interest of construction workers, as well as members of the general public who sustain…”
Turner Ozanne v. Hyman Power, 111 F.3d 1312 (7th Cir. 1997). “or other work dealing with construction, or for any moving, demolition or excavation connected therewith, every covenant, promise or agreement to indemnify or hold harmless another person from that person's own negligence is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”
Tanns v. Ben A. Borenstein & Co., 688 N.E.2d 667 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “29, par. 61. The Act also stated in section 3 that it did "not apply to construction bonds or insurance contracts or agreements.”
Lehman v. IBP, Inc., 639 N.E.2d 152 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “Section 1 of the Act provides that "[w]ith respect to contracts or agreements, either public or private, for construction, * * *, every covenant, promise or agreement to indemnify or hold harmless another person from that person's own negligence is void as against public policy…”
Lehman v. IBP, Inc., 639 N.E.2d 152 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “IBP contends that the insurance provision is not void because an exception exists in the Act for insurance contracts or agreements (740 ILCS 35/3 (West 1992)). See St. John v.”
Tanns v. Ben A. Borenstein & Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “1989, ch. 29, par. 61. The Act also stated in section 3 that it did "not apply to construction bonds or insurance contracts or agreements.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.