Legal Opinion

Copley v. Pekin Insurance Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 30, 1985No. 4-84-0310PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mills

Doctrine of cancellation by substitution?

Yes.

We reverse.

Joel Copley and Federated Mutual Insurance Company (Federated) filed their two-count complaint on August 10, 1982, naming Pekin Insurance Company (Pekin) as defendant. In count I, Copley asked the court to declare his rights under an insurance policy which he had purchased from Pekin. In count II, Federated asked the court to declare the respective rights and liabilities of Pekin and Federated with regard to a fire loss suffered by their alleged insured, Copley. Pekin contended that its policy with Copley had been cancelled pursuant to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Larsen v. Thuringia American InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1978
  3. Continental Casualty Co. v. Aetna InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  4. Sizelove v. INA INS. CO. OF N. AMER.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1982

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mateyka v. SchroederAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987
  2. Illinois Armored Car Corp. v. Industrial CommissionAppellate Court of Illinois · 1990
  3. Copley v. Pekin Insurance Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Effingham State Bank v. BladesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985
  5. Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API