In January of 2010, Rick and Ruth Jones applied for auto insurance through Standard Mutual Insurance Company. The application asked them to list all the residents of their household, but they failed to mention their two sons: Derrick, 20 years old, and Tyler, 16 years old. Seven months later, Tyler allegedly caused an accident while driving a car owned by his parents and covered by the liability policy. Standard Mutual sued to rescind the policy, arguing that the Jones family made a material representation in the written application by failing to disclose their two sons.

The Jones’ defense countered that for specified lines of insurance, Section 154 of the Illinois Insurance Code holds that “a policy or policy renewal shall not be rescinded after the policy has been in effect for one year or one policy term, whichever is less.” The trial court found for the defendants, agreeing that because the Jones’ auto insurance policy had been in effect for one policy term, it could not be defeated on the grounds on their initial misrepresentation about their family.

The case ultimately becameStandard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2012 Ill. App. (4th) 110526. On appeal, the Fourth District materially affirmed the trail court’s decision.

Source: Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Volume 158, No. 79 (2012)

The Code defines a safety zone as an area within a one-eighth-mile radius of an educational facility or a recreational facility owned by a park district. Within this radius, municipalities will be able to install systems that automatically record the speed of a vehicle violating the speed limit and that capture images of the vehicle and the vehicle’s license plate. The municipality will have up to 90 days after the violation to issue a written notice to the offending driver.

Violators will be subject to a maximum fine of $100, plus another $100 for failure to pay the initial fine on time. However, no penalty will apply if the vehicle’s recorded speed was not more than five miles per hour over the legal limit. A municipality must use the proceeds from these fines for specified civic purposes, such as initiatives to improve pedestrian and traffic safety.

Images captured by the new automated speed enforcement systems will be confidential and available only to governmental and law enforcement agencies for specified purposes. Violations under the amended section of the Vehicle Code will not be considered moving violations and may not affect the driving record of the vehicle’s owner.

(Source: Illinois Bar Journal, April 2012, Vol. 100)

The new law was approved and signed despite overwhelming opposition in public correspondence on the issue. Critics claim the new cameras are simply a device for raising revenue, while supporters—including some personal injury attorneys—maintain that the new equipment will reduce accidents involving pedestrians.

The Chicago Tribune has calculated that cameras placed near schools and parks would be able to cover more than one half of the city of Chicago.

The city will be able to install the new equipment beginning July 1^st, but the Chicago City Council must still vote to implement the program.

(Source: abcnews.com)