1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ill.
  4. 129 Ill.
  5. 129 Ill. App.3d 1011 (1984)
 

SCOTT & FETZER CO. v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO.

Nos. 83-1747, 83-2225, 83-2328 cons.

129 Ill. App.3d 1011 (1984)

473 N.E.2d 421

SCOTT & FETZER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants (Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee). SALES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants (Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee). AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants (Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee). TOYOMENKA (American), INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees (Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee).

Appellate Court of Illinois — First District (1st Division).

Opinion filed December 24, 1984.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert A. Downing, Gerald L. Angst, David F. Graham, and Christopher J. Michas, all of Sidley & Austin, of Chicago, for appellant Montgomery Ward & Company.

Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, P.C., of Chicago (James T. Ferrini, Thomas A. McDonald, Thomas J. Skeffington, and Lisa Marco Kouba, of counsel), for other appellants.

Sandra Young, Mark E. Parsky, D. Timothy McVey, and Edward C. Purcell, all of Purcell & Wardrope, Chartered, of Chicago, for appellee.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part and remanded.

PRESIDING JUSTICE BUCKLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

The instant consolidated appeals arise from a fire which broke out in the Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. (Wards), warehouse in Bensenville. Wards' fire alarm and sprinkler system allegedly malfunctioned, and the fire spread to the adjoining premises of the warehouse. Extensive property damage resulted. The tenants of the adjoining premises...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases