Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bohner v. Ace American Insurance

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 26, 2005No. 2-05-0020Published

1DissentJustice McLaren

I respectfully dissent. The majority’s interpretation of the insurance policy permits defendant to have collected insurance premiums from plaintiff for virtually no meaningful coverage. The majority ignores the well-settled principle that the law accords the insured the most favorable and liberal construction of exclusionary insurance provisions. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Glenview Park District, 158 Ill. 2d 116, 122 (1994). Insurance provisions that limit or exclude coverage are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and “most strongly against…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Glenview Park DistrictIllinois Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Lincoln Logan Mutual Insurance v. FornshellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1999
  3. People v. GassmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
  4. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. KellyAppellate Court of Illinois · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API