MELROSE PARK SUNDRIES, INC. v. Carlini

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the provisions of section 2-2201 sound in the language of tort
• finding that the provisions of section 2-2201 sound in the language of tort
• finding that the provisions of section 2-2201 sound in the language of tort
• “To hold Carlini responsible for insurance coverage beyond that requested by Mel-rose Park would extend the duty of ordinary care beyond that expressly defined [in § 2-2201(a) ] by the legislature.”
• the insured’s request that he be “covered on everything” did not impose a duty on the insurance producer to procure workers’ compensation insurance that was not specifically requested

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).