Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Thornton v. Paul

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 2, 1980No. 15875Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Green

I agree with the majority’s well-reasoned conclusions that (1) the trial court should not have stricken evidence rebutting Illinois Founders’ prima facie battery defense, and (2) the question of whether the event in question constituted an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy was also before the trial court on remand. I conclude, however, that the evidence, including that which was improperly stricken after the conclusion of the hearing, showed, as a matter of law, that the liability insurance policy did not cover the event. For this reason, I would affirm the order finding Illinois…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dora Township v. Indiana Insurance Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1980
  2. In Re the Accounting of HearnsNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. Scott v. Instant Parking, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1969
  4. E. J. Albrecht Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkAppellate Court of Illinois · 1937
  5. Hawthorne v. FrostAppellate Court of Illinois · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API