Additionally, the relevant language in this case is the specific language contained in the release, not the release's general language. Plaintiff relies on Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68 (1992), to support his argument that the release does not apply to the claim involving the Federal return. However, that case is inapposite.
See Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Whitlock, 144 Ill. 2d 440, 448 (1991) ("A general release is inapplicable to an unknown claim"). In Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68 (1992), for instance, the plaintiff sued his employer, seeking malpractice coverage for a claim brought years after his employment had terminated and after the alleged malpractice. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs claim was barred by a release signed seven years earlier by which the plaintiff released the defendant from:
The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 29; Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill.App.3d 68, 72 (1992). If a reasonable person could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed material facts or if a material fact remains in dispute, then the trial court should deny the motion.
The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72 (1992). If reasonable people could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed material facts or if a material fact remains in dispute, then the trial court should deny the motion.
A party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012); Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). In determining whether to grant or deny a request for summary judgment, the trial court strictly construes all evidence in the record against the moving party and liberally in favor of the opponent.
When "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," the party who filed the motion is entitled to summary judgment. Id.; see also Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). The trial court must determine if a factual issue remains in deciding whether to grant or deny a party's motion for summary judgment.
¶ 15 Section 2-1005(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that a party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012); see also Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1, 6, 772 N.E.2d 215, 218 (2002); Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). The purpose of summary judgment is to determine if a question of fact exists.
Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986); Koziol, 309 Ill. App. 3d at 476, 723 N.E.2d at 323. The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). If reasonable people could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed material facts or if a material fact remains in dispute, then the trial court should deny themotion.
Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill.2d 229, 240, 95 Ill.Dec. 305, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986). The court is required to review all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill.App.3d 68, 72, 167 Ill.Dec. 225, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). If material facts are in dispute, then the trial court is required to “view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences from the facts presented in favor of the nonmovant.” Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill.App.3d 303, 312, 282 Ill.Dec. 856, 807 N.E.2d 480, 487 (2004) (citing In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill.2d 402, 410–11, 185 Ill.Dec. 866, 615 N.E.2d 736, 739–40 (1993)). Courts should not use summary judgment to resolve questions of fact. Martens, 347 Ill.App.3d at 312, 282 Ill.Dec. 856, 807 N.E.2d at 487 (citing Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill.2d 511, 517, 190 Ill.Dec. 758, 622 N.E.2d 788, 792 (1993)). Courts use summary judgment to determine whether a factual question exists.
Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986). The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). On appeal, courts review summary judgments de novo. Myers, 225 Ill. App. 3d at 72, 587 N.E.2d at 497.