Sypien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insur. Co.

15 Citing cases

  1. Ledger v. Tippitt

    164 Cal.App.3d 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Surviving spouse can recover for loss of decedent's "love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace or moral support, loss of enjoyment of sexual relations, loss of physical assistance in the operation or maintenance of the home"

    Attempts to include less formalized relationships within that definition have not been successful. ( Menchaca v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 117, 126-128 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 607]; Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carroll (1956) 50 Del. 67 [ 123 A.2d 128, 131]; Sypien v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (1982) 111 Ill. App.3d 19 [ 443 N.E.2d 706, 708-709, 36 A.L.R.4th 580]; Lopez v. Santiago (1973) 125 N.J. Super. 268 [ 310 A.2d 500].) Third, although the right of privacy in sexual matters is not limited to the marital relationship ( Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438, 453 [31 L.Ed.2d 349, 362, 92 S.Ct. 1029]), the Butcher court would apparently require the unmarried claimant to prove ". . . exclusivity of sexual relations . . ." for the duration of the relationship.

  2. Allstate Insurance v. Shelton

    105 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 7 times
    Holding term " 'relative' requires a connection by blood or affinity," of which marriage is one

    Michael Shelton's policy does not define "relative" to include a "foster child"; even if it did, and if Alaska courts did not limit the term to foster children placed by the state, the evidence hardly shows that Michael "reared" Brittany in the eleven months they lived together. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hilsenrad, 462 So.2d 1202, 1204 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1985) (general rule is "that one not a relative by blood or marriage is not covered as a relative"); Demaio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 534 So.2d 1244, 1244-45 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App. 1988) (dissolution of marriage not only dissolved insured's relationship to claimant's aunt as wife, but also insured's relationship by affinity to all of aunt's blood relatives, including claimant); cf. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Goosen, 148 Cal.Rptr. 784, 786 (Ct.App. 1978) ("Whatever the social status, under present morality, of a paramour, he is not a `relative' within any terminology of which we are aware."); Sypien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 443 N.E.2d 706, 710 (Ill.App.Ct. 1982) (same). We respectfully decline the estate's invitation to apply a strained usage of "relative" to suit its conception of modern social mores.

  3. North American Specialty Insurance v. Foth

    861 F. Supp. 709 (N.D. Ill. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    Blackwell presents traditional and dictionary definitions of "passenger" and "pilot" in his motion for summary judgment. The relevant definition the court must enforce, however, is the definition supplied by the policy itself, unless the definition itself is ambiguous. Sypien v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 111 Ill. App.3d 19, 66 Ill.Dec. 780, 784, 443 N.E.2d 706, 710 (1982). Foth's policy defines a "passenger" as "any person while in or upon or entering into the aircraft for the purpose of riding or flying therein, or while alighting from the aircraft following a flight or attempted flight."

  4. Cole v. State Farm Ins. Co.

    128 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2006)   Cited 6 times

    Relatedly, we note that Mayac named herself and her three children as insured persons on the policy's declarations page but did not name Cole as a spouse or in any other capacity.See, e.g., Sypien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 111 Ill.App.3d 19, 66 Ill.Dec. 780, 443 N.E.2d 706 (1982); Menchaca v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 59 Cal.App.3d 117, 130 Cal.Rptr. 607 (1976); Causey v. Valentine, 271 So.2d 365 (La.App. 1972); Harleysville Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 123 A.2d 128 (Del.Super. 1956).IV. CONCLUSION

  5. Brewer v. Brewer

    338 S.E.2d 229 (W. Va. 1985)   Cited 5 times
    In Brewer, we recognized the three general requirements that must be met to have a valid inter vivos gift: (1) there must be an intention on the part of the donor to make a gift; (2) there must be a delivery or transfer of the subject matter of the gift; and (3) there must be acceptance by the donee.

    " Lopez v. Santiago, 125 N.J. Super. 268, 270, 310 A.2d 500, 501 (1973). See, Sypien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 111 Ill. App.3d 19, 66 Ill.Dec. 780, 443 N.E.2d 706 (1982); Menchaca v. Hiatt, 59 Cal.App.3d 117, 130 Cal.Rptr. 607 (1976). The Harleysville Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. case, supra, indicates that parties contemplating marriage, and about to be married, are not "spouses" until a lawful marriage occurs.

  6. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bierman

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 180426 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    ยถ 21 Therefore, by common understanding, the term "related * * * by * * * marriage" encompassed Winnie and Blake's stepparent-stepchild relationship during the marriage of Winnie and David. See Byrne , 156 Ill. App. 3d at 1101, 109 Ill.Dec. 510, 510 N.E.2d 131 ("[g]enerally, the courts recognize a relationship of affinity between a stepchild and a stepparent"); Calloway , 138 Ill. App. 3d at 547-48, 93 Ill.Dec. 32, 485 N.E.2d 1242 (named insured's stepgrandson's wife was not "relative" of named insured for purposes of uninsured motorist provision); Sypien v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 111 Ill. App. 3d 19, 24, 66 Ill.Dec. 780, 443 N.E.2d 706 (1982) (named insured's live-in girlfriend's daughter was not "relative" of named insured's "spouse" for purposes of uninsured motorist provision). However, the policy language lacks guidance regarding whether Blake continued to be "related * * * by * * * marriage" to Winnie after Winnie and David divorced and David died.

  7. Ryan v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.

    397 Ill. App. 3d 48 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    Pekin Insurance Co., 301 Ill. App. 3d at 1037. Furthermore, the rule that exclusions are liberally construed in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer applies only where the language used is ambiguous. Pekin Insurance Co., 301 Ill. App. 3d at 1037; Sypien v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 111 Ill. App. 3d 19, 21 (1982). The language of the regular use exclusion is clear and unambiguous and does not contravene public policy.

  8. Groves v. State Farm Life and Cas. Co.

    171 Ariz. 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that an ex-son-in-law was not a resident relative under a homeowner's insurance policy

    In insurance cases, one not a relative by blood or marriage is not covered as a relative. Anderson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 570 F. Supp. 1222 (D.RI 1983); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hilsenrad, 462 So.2d 1202 (Fla.App. 1985); Sypien v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 111 Ill. App.3d 19, 66 Ill.Dec. 780, 443 N.E.2d 706 (1982); Liprie v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., supra; Mickelson v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 329 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1983).

  9. Morgan v. American Sec. Ins. Co.

    522 So. 2d 454 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    The term means simply the legal wife or husband of the named insured at the time of the loss. Sypien v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 111 Ill. App.3d 19, 66 Ill.Dec. 780, 443 N.E.2d 706 (1982), 36 A.L.R.4 580; see also 6C Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, ยง 4352, at 20-22 (1979) (named insured's spouse will usually be considered a member of the same household, despite a separation and separate residency, but spouse will no longer be covered following a divorce). Thus, the policy was not ambiguous for failing to specify that a spouse's interest in the policy will be extinguished upon divorce, since by definition, James Morgan was no longer a "spouse" covered under the policy after the Morgans divorced.

  10. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Byrne

    156 Ill. App. 3d 1098 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 12 times

    However, Acker and Smith are not related by affinity. Additionally, the argument that the definition of "relative" should be relaxed to take into account a changing society has been rejected in other situations. For example, in Sypien v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 19, 24, the court determined that the daughter of a party in cohabitation with the insured did not qualify as a relative. Despite the prevalence of cohabitation of unmarried individuals, the court was unwilling to redefine the term to bring the party within the scope of coverage.