§Why CasetextPricing

Fox v. Will Co, et al

MEMORANDUM

42 Cited authorities

  1. Brooks v. Ross

    578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,252 times
    Holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations

  2. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust

    186 Ill. 2d 127 (Ill. 1999)   Cited 359 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "undisputed facts compel the legal conclusion that Wausau's refusal to defend the Wyoming suit was vexatious and unreasonable as a matter of law"

  3. Justice v. Town of Cicero

    577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 209 times
    Holding local ordinance “requiring the registration of all firearms” is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller I

  4. Horwitz v. Holabird Root

    212 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2004)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that outside attorneys can be agents and therefore declining to "fashion a wholesale exception to the agency rules for attorneys"

  5. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.

    20 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 137 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the defendant was cause in fact of the plaintiff's damages, for policy reasons, it was not proximate cause

  6. Stoneridge Dev. Co. v. Essex Insurance Co.

    382 Ill. App. 3d 731 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 89 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that there was no "property damage," and therefore no coverage, where the underlying complaint only alleged damage to the foundation of a home built by the insured and that an action to recover the costs to repair the home and its diminished value sought only "economic losses"

  7. Magnum Foods, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co.

    36 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir. 1994)   Cited 115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying Oklahoma law

  8. Cincinnati Insurance v. American Hardware

    387 Ill. App. 3d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 54 times
    Recognizing that construction of an insurance policy is an appropriate subject for disposition by summary judgment and will be granted if the moving party demonstrates that no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

  9. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

    288 Ill. App. 3d 743 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an underlying complaint presents an issue of potential insurance coverage, and the insurer believes that the policy does not cover the claim, the insurer may not refuse to defend the insured, but must either defend the suit under a reservation of rights or seek a declaration of no coverage"

  10. Haddick v. Valor Ins

    198 Ill. 2d 409 (Ill. 2001)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing dismissal of bad-faith claim where insurer failed to respond to plaintiff's demand to settle for the policy limits within the one month deadline she imposed despite having 11 months to investigate the accident, and insurer waited another year and until after plaintiff had filed suit against the policyholder to offer to settle for the policy limit