Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

Archives for October 2016

October 14, 2016 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Limitation of actions — Estoppel — Judge of compensation claims erred in finding that employer/carrier was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2297aTop of Form Workers’ compensation — Limitation of actions — Estoppel — Judge of compensation claims erred in finding that employer/carrier was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense against claimant’s request for benefits where there was no evidence that claimant detrimentally relied on a misrepresentation or omission made by Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 7, 2016 by admin

Illinois – First District – Premises Liability – Plaintiff, a hair stylist operating as independent contractor, filed complaint for premises liability after a shelf fell and injured her as she stood at her hair salon station on premises of retirement community.anted summary judgment for salon owner.

Premises Liability  |  1st Dist. Hanna v. Creative Designers, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 143727 (September 15, 2016) Cook Co., 4th Div. (McBRIDE) Affirmed. Plaintiff, a hair stylist operating as independent contractor, filed complaint for premises liability after a shelf fell and injured her as she stood at her hair salon station on premises of Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 7, 2016 by admin

Illinois – Second District – Court properly entered summary judgment for Defendant homeowner in wrongful death action arising from toddler’s drowning in Defendant’s above-ground swimming pool.

Negligence  |  2d Dist. Perez v. The Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, 2016 IL App (1st) 152087 (September 14, 2016) DuPage Co. (ZENOFF) Affirmed. Court properly entered summary judgment for Defendant homeowner in wrongful death action arising from toddler’s drowning in Defendant’s above-ground swimming pool. Distraction exception is inapplicable, as clothes rack placed in Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 7, 2016 by admin

Illinois Second District – Arbitration – Plaintiff insurer filed subrogation action to recover payments it made to its insured

Arbitration  |  2d Dist.  State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Watts Regulator Company, 2016 IL App (2d) 160275 (September 29, 2016) McHenry Co. (JORGENSEN) Affirmed. Plaintiff insurer filed subrogation action to recover payments it made to its insured. Defendant moved to compel arbitration as parties were signatories to Arbitration Forums’ Arbitration Agreement. Amendment to Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 7, 2016 by admin

Illinois – Fourth District – Jurisdiction – Where a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable

Jurisdiction  |  4th Dist.  Khan v. Gramercy Advisors, LLC, 2016 IL App (4th) 150435 (June 30, 2016) Champaign Co. (APPLETON) Affirmed in part and reversed in part. (Modified upon denial of rehearing 10/3/16.) Plaintiffs, an individual husband and wife, and 2 LLCs in which he purchased majority interests, sued Defendants for allegedly inducing them, by Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982