Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a] court may not add provisions that are not found in a statute”
• noting that “use” of an automobile “has been held to denote its employment for some purpose of the user,” and concluding the term “use” includes riding in a vehicle as a permissive passenger
• reviewing cases that conclude that “use” is not limited to operating a vehicle, and holding that a passenger qualifies as an insured because the passenger is a permissive user
• prohibiting courts from adding provisions that are not found in a statute or reading into the law exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express
• “Where an order granting summary judgment is before us on appeal, our review is de novo.”
• “[tjerms of an insurance policy that conflict with a statute are void and unenforceable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).