Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker

18 Citing cases

  1. Jacobs v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company

    No. 04 C 0995 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    The doctrine of estoppel may apply when a party changes its position in reasonable reliance on the words or conduct of another party, and is harmed as a direct result thereof.Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 533 N.E.2d 1004, 1006; 178 Ill. App. 3d 809, 811 (1st Dist. 1989). In order to establish estoppel in the insurance context, an insured must prove (1) that he was mislead by the acts or representations of the insurer, (2) that he reasonably relied on those representations, and (3) that his reliance caused him compensable harm.

  2. Mayfield v. Mavrakis

    2023 Ill. App. 1221293 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Motions for summary judgment are not "intended to be used as a means of weighing conflicting issues of fact." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill.App.3d 809, 812 (1989). ¶ 16 To state a cause of action for negligence, a complaint must allege facts that establish the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by that breach.

  3. Brock v. City of Chi.

    No. 1-14-1302 (Ill. App. Ct. Jun. 22, 2015)

    " Id. Motions for summary judgment are not "intended to be used as a means of weighing conflicting issues of fact." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill. App. 3d 809, 812 (1989). ¶ 19 To state a cause of action for negligence, a complaint must allege facts that establish the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by that breach.

  4. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Smiley

    276 Ill. App. 3d 971 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 65 times
    Finding "arising out of" to be unambiguous and interpreting "the word `arise' [to] mean `[t]o spring up, originate, to come into being or notice' (Black's Law Dictionary 108 (6th ed. 1990)), or `to come into being,' `to come about: come up: take place' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary 117 (1986))"

    To establish estoppel in an insurance policy context, the insured must prove: (1) that he was misled by the acts or statements of the insurer or its agent; (2) reliance by the insured on those representations; (3) that such reliance was reasonable; and (4) detriment or prejudice suffered by the insured based upon that reliance. ( Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker (1989), 178 Ill. App.3d 809, 811.) According to defendants, the actions of Allstate agent Bonnie Perton misled the Smileys into believing that the day-care business was completely insured.

  5. Anest v. Bailey

    198 Ill. App. 3d 740 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    • 2 The rules and procedures governing motions for summary judgment are clear and well established in the State of Illinois. Most important is the fact that summary judgment is a drastic and extraordinary remedy and, as such, must be granted only when the movant's right to judgment as a matter of law is absolutely clear and free from doubt. ( Purtill v. Hess (1986), 111 Ill.2d 229, 240; Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker (1989), 178 Ill. App.3d 809, 812.) The trial court's task is to determine whether issues of fact which are material to the dispute exist, but not to try those issues ( Purtill, 111 Ill.2d at 240); further, summary judgment should be granted by the trial court only when it is satisfied that the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting evidence on file present no genuine issue of material fact. ( Knief v. Sotos (1989), 181 Ill. App.3d 959, 962-63; see also Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-1005(c).

  6. Carrara v. Midland Paper Co.

    2023 Ill. App. 221416 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Summary judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and should be granted only when the right to it is clear and free from doubt. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill.App.3d 809, 812 (1989).

  7. Dupuis v. Riverside Health Sys.

    2023 Ill. App. 3d 210593 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    See Fennerty v. City of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 140679, ¶ 16 ("Conflicting statements by a witness do not provide a sufficient basis to grant summary judgment as '[i]t is not within the province of the trial court to weigh these conflicting statements.' ") (quoting Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill.App.3d 809, 813 (1989)). Although Dupuis made many statements in her deposition that give rise to an inference that she could not remember whether she fell within the crosswalk, those statements were not unequivocal because she elsewhere agreed that she did fall within the crosswalk.

  8. Rogers v. Santoro-Cotton

    2018 Ill. App. 170606 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    Motions for summary judgment are not "intended to be used as a means of weighing conflicting issues of fact." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill. App. 3d 809, 812 (1989). We review a trial court's entry of summary judgment de novo. Virginia Surety Co., Inc. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 224 Ill. 2d 550, 556 (2007).

  9. Fennerty v. City of Chi.

    2015 Ill. App. 140679 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Conflicting statements by a witness do not provide a sufficient basis to grant summary judgment as “[i]t is not within the province of the trial court to weigh these conflicting statements.” Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill.App.3d 809, 813, 127 Ill.Dec. 922, 533 N.E.2d 1004 (1989). We find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the property is recreational property for purposes of section 3–106, and the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city was error.

  10. Caburnay v. Norwegian American Hosp.

    2011 Ill. App. 101740 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a jury issue existed about whether a fold in a mat caused a plaintiff's fall where he "repeatedly and conclusively indicated that he fell only after tripping on a fold or bump in [the defendant's] mat"

    Even if we were to find this testimony inconsistent, such an inconsistency should affect Caburnay's credibility before a trier of fact, not subject him to summary judgment. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 178 Ill.App.3d 809, 813, 127 Ill.Dec. 922, 533 N.E.2d 1004 (1989) (“an apparent inconsistent statement” from a defendant was insufficient to justify summary judgment because “[i]t is not within the province of the trial court to weigh these conflicting statements” when ruling on motions for summary judgment). ¶ 33 When Caburnay testified that he felt his foot catch in the mat, he was not describing an emotion, but a sensory perception, in the same way that a blind person would describe something he or she was able to touch but not see. He never testified that it “felt as if ” he tripped on a fold or that it “ seemed like ” his foot caught a buckle in the carpet, but instead unequivocally testified as to his sensory perceptions, describing the tangible, physical sensation of his foot catching on a fold in the mat.