Estate of Blakely v. Fed. Kemper Life

24 Citing cases

  1. Tiger Fibers, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Insurance

    594 F. Supp. 2d 630 (E.D. Va. 2009)   Cited 28 times
    Stating that the challenging party "must show that ‘there has been a meeting of minds—their agreement actually entered into, but the contract ... does not express what was really intended by the parties thereto’ " (citing toDickenson Cty. Bank v. Royal Exch. Assur. of London, England , 157 Va. 94, 103, 160 S.E. 13 (1931) )

    at 576, 621 S.E.2d at 119 (quoting Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill. App. 3d 100, 106, 640 N.E.2d 961, 966 (1994)). Moreover, scrivener's errors "are those which are 'demonstrably contradicted by all other documents,'" id. at 575, 621 S.E.2d at 119 (quoting Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 283, 568 S.E.2d 671, 673 (2002)), and are "such errors as those evidenced in the writing that can be proven without parol evidence," id. at 576, 621 S.E.2d at 119 (citing Blakely, 267 Ill. App. 3d at 106, 640 N.E.2d at 966).

  2. Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

    336 Ill. App. 3d 635 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that where the evidence may lead to an inference of either good faith or malicious actions, it is an issue for the trier of fact

    " 145 Ill. 2d R. 191(a). "According to Supreme Court Rule 191(a), a court must disregard conclusions in affidavits when adjudicating a summary judgment motion." Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill. App. 3d 100, 105 (1994). Pursuant to the plain language of the rule and the applicable case law, this court must disregard the conclusions of Cagney and Romza that the medical findings were consistent with the alleged abuse.

  3. In re Marriage of Battaglia

    2023 Ill. App. 220051 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Where a provision is "manifestly incongruous" with other provisions in the agreement, it is a scrivener's error, and reformation of the agreement to correct the error is proper. See Estate of Blakely, 267 Ill.App.3d 100, 107 (1994) (citingMetropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Henriksen, 6 Ill.App.2d 127, 134 (1955)).

  4. Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

    2016 Ill. App. 150772 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore the trial court acted properly in correcting the date. See Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill. App. 3d 100, 107 (1994) (citing cases where a scrivener's error led to the reformation of an insurance contract). ¶ 28 The rules governing contract construction also govern the interpretation of a marital settlement agreement. In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 166 (2010).

  5. Clark v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container

    297 Ill. App. 3d 694 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 31 times
    Finding employee established causation where employer admitted that discharge was based on workers' compensation filing, specifically, the industrial relations director's belief that employee was collecting benefits to which she was not entitled and employer's "claim she was guilty of fraudulent acts justifying the termination of her employment"

    Owens-Brockway is correct in its contention that "the mere filing of cross-motions does not compel the court to grant summary judgment in favor of one party or the other." Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill. App.3d 100, 109, 640 N.E.2d 961, 968 (1994). However, we are not bound by the trial court's reasoning and may rely upon any ground present in the record to sustain the trial court's decision.

  6. Singer v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    21-CV-08450 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. May. 16, 2023)

    One of the out-of-circuit cases cited by Plaintiff addresses a fixed premium life insurance policy. Estate of Blakely v Fed. Kemper Life Assur. Co., 640 N.E.2d 961 (Ill.App.Ct. 1994). That case, however, is unlike the instant case.

  7. Vyera Pharm., LLC v. Walgreen Co.

    No. 19 CV 5652 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Although it is tempting to term this a mere scrivener's error, we decline to do so at this juncture. Scriveners errors are sometimes entitled to reformation under Illinois law. Estate of Blakely v. Fed. Kemp. Life Assur. Co., 257 Ill. App. 3d 100, 106, 640 N.E.2d 961, 966 (2d Dist. 1994). For example, a missing decimal point is a scrivener's error.

  8. Lebovits v. PHL Variable Ins. Co.

    199 F. Supp. 3d 678 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that the New York Court of Appeals "would invalidate a notice that misstated the premium due, as long as the misstatement was not de minimis"

    Although the statute does not explicitly state that the amount given in the notice must be correct, courts in states with similar provisions have read that requirement into the statute. SeeTurner v. OM Financial Life Ins. Co ., 822 F.Supp.2d 633, 637–38 (W.D.La.2011) ; Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co. , 267 Ill.App.3d 100, 203 Ill.Dec. 811, 640 N.E.2d 961, 969 (1994). The only exception is if the discrepancy is a "harmless typographical error."

  9. Northern Trust Company v. MS Securities Services, Inc.

    Nos. 05 C 3370, 05 C 3373 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2006)   Cited 7 times

    A claim for reformation fails if it rests on a mistake of law, as opposed to a mistake of fact. Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill. App. 3d 100, 640 N.E.2d 961, 966, 203 Ill. Dec. 811 (Ill.App. 2d Dist. 1994); Wilcox v. Natural Gas Storage Co., 24 Ill.2d 509, 182 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ill. 1962) (quoting Ambarann Corp. v. Old Ben Coal Corp., 395 Ill. 154, 69 N.E.2d 835, 841 (Ill. 1946); but seeIn re Estate of Hurst, 329 Ill. App. 3d 326, 769 N.E.2d 55, 60-62, 263 Ill. Dec. 853 (Ill.App. 4th Dist. 2002). The mistake of fact must relate to the time that the contract was drawn.

  10. Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Titan Tire Corp.

    No. 01-3393 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2005)

    In Illinois, an insured is generally bound to know his policy's contents. Estate of Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assur. Co., 640 N.E.2d 961, 968 (Ill.App. 2d Dist. 1994). This general rule does not apply, however, where the insured has been misled by some act of the insurer.