American States Insur. Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co.

25 Citing cases

  1. Wilfong v. L.J. Dodd Construction

    401 Ill. App. 3d 1044 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that the distraction exception did not apply where the plaintiff was distracted by his own cell phone conversation

    Porter argues that no duty was created by its signing a standardized form contract that refers to only safety provisions of a general nature. Porter cites American States Insurance Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co., 229 Ill. App. 3d 422 (1992). There, a subcontractor's insurance company brought suit against the general contractor to recover damages sustained as a result of the subcontractor's employee slipping and falling on ice. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace as required by its contract with the subcontractor.

  2. Owens v. McDermott

    316 Ill. App. 3d 340 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that a party's intent is best determined from the plain language of the contract

    Alternatively, Owens argues that the Voting Agreement is ambiguous and gives rise to genuine issues of material fact. Generally, a contract is deemed to be ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction. American States Insurance Company v. A.J. Maggio Company, Incorporated, 229 Ill. App.3d 422, 426-27, 593 N.E.2d 1083 (1992). If, after considering the language of an agreement, a court determines that the document is ambiguous, the court may then look beyond the agreement to ascertain the intent of the parties.

  3. Eichengreen v. Rollins, Inc.

    325 Ill. App. 3d 517 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that a contract was fully integrated where it "specifically enumerated services for the stated price as proposed by the plaintiff."

    Thus, the August 16, 1988 letter is the only and entire agreement between the parties. Any particular interpretation that only the plaintiff may have envisioned at the time a contract is executed is immaterial. American States Insurance Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co., 229 Ill. App.3d 422, 427, 593 N.E.2d 1083, 1086 (1992). This court will not add another term about which an agreement is silent.

  4. Sheffer v. Springfield Airport Authority

    261 Ill. App. 3d 151 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 11 times
    In Sheffer, the plaintiff sued an airline company for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice on an airport tarmac after she had exited an airplane.

    Questions regarding whether that duty was properly performed, however, are reserved for the trier of fact. Jones, 206 Ill. App.3d at 139, 563 N.E.2d at 1122; Serritos v. Chicago Transit Authority (1987), 153 Ill. App.3d 265, 269, 505 N.E.2d 1034, 1037. In Illinois, in the absence of a contractual obligation, there is no duty with respect to natural accumulations of snow and ice. ( American States Insurance Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co. (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 422, 425, 593 N.E.2d 1083, 1085.) Specifically, the natural accumulations rule states a business owner owes no duty to business invitees to remove accumulations of snow and ice from areas maintained for the use of those invitees where the accumulations are natural and not caused or aggravated by the owner.

  5. IFC CREDIT CORPORATION v. TISSUE PRODUCTS TECH. CORP

    CASE NO. 07 C 4351 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2009)

    A contract is ambiguous only if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions; it is not ambiguous if the court can determine its meaning without any guide other than a knowledge of the simple facts on which, from the nature of the language in general, its meaning depends; contracts are not rendered ambiguous merely because the parties do not agree upon their proper construction." American States Ins. Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co., Inc., 593 N.E.2d 1083, 1086 (III. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1992). IFC contends that Defendants Eco-Fibre and Oconto Falls, as two of the five RVDH Entities, are liable to IFC for the remaining $3.4 million due under the settlement agreement.

  6. Matter of Celotex Corp.

    175 B.R. 98 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    Contracts are not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties to the contract disagree on a meaning. American States Ins. Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co., Inc., 229 Ill. App.3d 422, 171 Ill.Dec. 263, 266, 593 N.E.2d 1083, 1086 (Ill.App.Ct. 1992); Shultz v. Delta-Rail Corp., 156 Ill. App.3d 1, 108 Ill.Dec. 566, 508 N.E.2d 1143 (Ill.App.Ct. 1987); Paist v. Town Country Corp., 772 F. Supp. 412, 414 (N.D.Ill. 1991); Alpine State Bank v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 941 F.2d 554, 559-60 (7th Cir. 1991). Upon disagreement, the intent of the parties is determined from the language of the agreement alone.

  7. Gallagher v. Union Square Condominium

    397 Ill. App. 3d 1037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing summary judgment where court misapplied law, courts must apply statutes as they are written by the legislature, rather than rendering terms superfluous

    Tomczak, 315 Ill. App. 3d at 1038; see also Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 380 (2003) (stating that, because the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act was in derogation of the common law, "it must be strictly construed against the public entities involved"). Under the common law, a property owner has no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. McBride v. Taxman Corp., 327 Ill. App. 3d 992, 996 (2002); American States Insurance Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co., 229 Ill. App. 3d 422, 425 (1992). A property owner may be liable, however, where the accumulation of snow and ice was caused or aggravated by him, or where he has voluntarily undertaken to remove snow and ice but has done so negligently. McBride, 327 Ill. App. 3d at 996; American, 229 Ill. App. 3d at 425-26.

  8. Frederick v. Prof. Truck Driver Trg. School

    328 Ill. App. 3d 472 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 37 times
    Finding on appeal from summary judgment for the defendant that the plaintiff waived an issue by failing to raise it in his complaint or otherwise raise it before the trial court

    We will not add terms to an agreement when the agreement is silent about those specific terms. American States Insurance Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co., 229 Ill. App.3d 422, 427 (1992). We most especially will not add terms to an agreement when the added language would clearly change the plain meaning of the agreement.

  9. Klemp v. Hergott Group, Inc.

    267 Ill. App. 3d 574 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that " court will not rewrite a contract to suit one of the parties, but will enforce the terms as written"

    ) A court will not add another term about which an agreement is silent. American States Insurance Co. v. A.J. Maggio Co. (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 422, 427, 593 N.E.2d 1083. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the plain language of the contract refers only to "R-4" zoning, which can only be granted by the city council of Highland Park. However, plaintiffs direct our attention to the clause that states "[p]urchaser shall use its best efforts to obtain the R-4 classification in an expeditious manner."

  10. Cooper v. Carl A. Nelson Co.

    211 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a district court should have allowed medical testimony as to the likely cause of the plaintiff's injury, even though the experts relied on the plaintiff's assertions about his medical history and about his chronic back pain following the incident in forming their opinions

    In interpreting this section, we must be careful not to interpret the contractual provisions in such a way as to expand the duties of the contractor beyond the scope of the duties described in the contract. See American States Ins. Co. v. A.J. Maggio, Inc., 593 N.E.2d 1083, 1086 (Ill.App.Ct. 1992). In American States, the Illinois court determined that a contractual provision that imposed a duty to keep the work area in reasonably safe condition imposed no greater duty on the possessor of the land than the common law duty stated above.