Hall v. Burger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the insurer should not be allowed to deduct the amounts paid by both underinsured tortfeasors, based on both the language of the insurance policy and public policy
• \the party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] need not file any counteraffidavits to create a material question of fact unless the movant presents evidence which precludes any possible liability\
• “the party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] need not file any counteraffidavits to create a material question of fact unless the movant presents evidence which precludes any possible liability”
• “the [Sulser] court labeled ‘absurd’ any construction whereby claimant would receive greater or lesser benefits due to the ‘fortuitous event of being injured by an underinsured motorist rather than by an uninsured motorist’ ” (quoting Sulzer, 147 Ill. 2d at 557)
• distinguishing cases involving only one tortfeasor
• distinguishing Sulser on this basis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).