Lee v. John Deere Insurance Company

65 Citing cases

  1. Nicholson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    409 Ill. App. 3d 282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that its decision was “consistent with the purpose of section 143a–2” because “[t]he legislature was concerned that without a mandatory offer of UM coverage, some insurers would not offer what an insured is willing to pay for.”

    Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2006); American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jeris, 376 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1073 (2007). The grant of summary judgment, as well as the underlying issue of statutory construction, is reviewed de novo. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38, 43 (2003). In Illinois, the offer of UM coverage is governed principally by section 143a-2 of the Code, which in 1999 (when the Janotas increased their coverage) provided, in relevant part:

  2. Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler

    405 Ill. App. 3d 113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 77 times
    Finding that timing of lawsuit tended to show it was retaliatory where it was filed four months after the defendant engaged in protected acts

    As this is an issue of statutory interpretation, and additionally involves the review of a dismissal, our review is de novo. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38, 43 (2003). • 1 The Act became law in August 2007.

  3. Jain v. Johnson

    398 Ill. App. 3d 135 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Interpreting the ambiguous language in Illinois’ "saving statute" to create a limited one-year refiling exception to Illinois' legal malpractice statute of repose

    DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006). Moreover, where the determination of the motion involves an issue of statutory construction, we review the judgment de novo. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38, 43 (2003). In any case involving the interaction of two statutes, we begin with the language of the statutes at issue.

  4. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sommerville

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 190362 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    The best indicator of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill.2d 38, 43 (2003). "When the statute's language is clear, it will be given effect without resort to other aids of statutory construction."

  5. Onan Suites Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnson

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 170455 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    ¶ 24 The Association argues strenuously that the trial court erred in holding that the Association lacked authority to impose the chargeback for the toilet repairs to Johnson's unit. It contends that the chargeback was authorized by both the Condominium Property Act and section 3.02 of the declaration. Johnson argues that the trial court's rulings were correct. ¶ 25 The proper construction of a contract or statute is a question of law, and thus we review the trial court's legal rulings on such matters de novo. Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 129 (2005) (contracts); Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38, 43 (2003) (statutes). ¶ 26 The Association first argues that the Condominium Property Act authorized the chargeback at issue. It points out that section 18.4 of that statute grants a condominium board, among other things, "access to each unit from time to time as may be necessary *** for making emergency repairs necessary to prevent damage to the common elements or to other units."

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

    2015 Ill. App. 151079 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    1 (West 2012)), as this is a question of law. Lee v. John Deere Ins. Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38, 43, 802 N.E.2d 774, 777 (2003).¶ 22 The statute provides consumer protection to an insured when his or her insurance policy includes a limitation clause for bringing a lawsuit against the insurer.

  7. WKS Crystal Lake, LLC v. LeFew

    403 Ill. Dec. 29 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Further, where the grant of summary judgment is based on the trial court's interpretation of a statute, we review that interpretation de novo. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill.2d 38, 43, 280 Ill.Dec. 523, 802 N.E.2d 774 (2003). ¶ 14 The plaintiffs attacked the Ordinance on the ground that it was not validly enacted, having received the affirmative votes of only three members of the city council.

  8. WKS Crystal Lake, LLC v. Lefew

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 150544 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    Further, where the grant of summary judgment is based on the trial court's interpretation of a statute, we review that interpretation de novo. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill.2d 38, 43, 280 Ill.Dec. 523, 802 N.E.2d 774 (2003). ¶ 14 The plaintiffs attacked the Ordinance on the ground that it was not validly enacted, having received the affirmative votes of only three members of the city council.

  9. Kurz v. Stanley Works

    2014 Ill. App. 2d 121429 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 31 The trial court granted summary judgment for Stanley on these counts on two bases: the statute of repose, and its finding of no issues of material fact. The standard of review in both of these contexts is de novo. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38, 43 (2003). ¶ 32 The statute of repose applicable to strict product liability claims is section 13-213 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-213 (West 2008)). Prior to its amendment by P.A. 89-7 (the Civil Justice Reform Act, which was invalidated in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (1997)), this section read, in pertinent part:

  10. Young America's Found. v. Doris A. Pistole Revocable Living Trust

    2013 Ill. App. 2d 121122 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that noncompliance with the same “door closing” was curable based on the court's construction of the statute's use of the word “maintain” and that the statute was intended to be simply coercive and not punitive

    The best indicator of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute. Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill.2d 38, 43, 280 Ill.Dec. 523, 802 N.E.2d 774 (2003). “When the statute's language is clear, it will be given effect without resort to other aids of statutory construction.”