Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. LeJeune

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1986No. 62541Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE RYAN,

specially concurring:

The insurance policy involved in this case uses language that is somewhat different from that used in the policies involved in the cases relied on by the majority opinion. Those policies required that there be “physical contact” between the hit-and-run vehicle and the person injured or the vehicle in which he was riding. This seems to be the language used in the policies in most of the cases that have considered this question. (See Annot., 25 A.L.R.3d 1299, 1306 (1969); Annot., 25 A.L.R.3d 88-90 (1986 Supp.).) As noted in the majority opinion, the courts have…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ferega v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Carlson v. WivellNebraska Supreme Court · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API