{
  "id": 2512901,
  "name": "JERRY DAIBER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants (Terry Duncan, Defendant-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Daiber v. Montgomery County Mutual Fire Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1989-11-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 5\u201487\u20140805",
  "first_page": "566",
  "last_page": "568",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 3d 566"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "494 N.E.2d 1206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1207"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill. App. 3d 564",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3499007
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "566"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/144/0564-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 N.E.2d 1113",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1119-20"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3461085
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "682"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/149/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "456 N.E.2d 98",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3121605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/98/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 N.E.2d 1030",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1031"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 677",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8499088
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/181/0677-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 3814,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1630073810608195e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5845180549136262
    },
    "sha256": "3649d0bdba7f8f42798e9cd5c4f703ad885aad0547df8df6ee69aed78af879d0",
    "simhash": "1:9ca753ede2b5fe45",
    "word_count": 617
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:26:25.592248+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JERRY DAIBER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants (Terry Duncan, Defendant-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HOWERTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nLawyers claim that the venue act is dead, killed by forum non conveniens.\nWe do not believe it.\nNo matter how limply venue may languish on the cross of forum non conveniens, it lives still. At least we think so and we believe that rumors amongst lawyers of its death have been greatly exaggerated. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014101 et seq.\nPlaintiffs live in Bond County. They bought insurance from defendants. It covered their house. The insurance was bought in Madison County. Defendants\u2019 principal place of business is in Montgomery County. Plaintiffs\u2019 house burned. The insurance company refused to pay, because they claimed the fire was suspicious. Plaintiffs filed suit in Madison County.\nDefendants moved to transfer venue to either Bond or Montgomery County.\nMadison, Bond and Montgomery Counties adjoin one another.\nEdwardsville is the county seat of Madison, Greenville the county seat of Bond, and Hillsboro the county seat of Montgomery.\nIt is 28 miles from Edwardsville to Greenville.\nIt is 38 miles from Edwardsville to Hillsboro.\nThis means it is very nearly 28 minutes from Edwardsville to Greenville, and 38 minutes from Edwardsville to Hillsboro.\nDefendants say it is more convenient to try the case in Green-ville or Hillsboro.\nIllinois judicially created forum non conveniens.\nThere are two types of forum non conveniens: (1) interstate; and (2) intrastate. Peterson v. Monsanto Co. (1989), 181 Ill. App. 3d 677, 678, 537 N.E.2d 1030, 1031.\nUnder interstate forum non conveniens, Illinois courts may decline jurisdiction if it is more convenient to try the case in another State.\nUnder intrastate forum non conveniens, one court in Illinois may transfer a case to another Illinois court, if it is more convenient to try the case in the other Illinois court.\nThis is an intrastate forum non conveniens case.\nIntrastate forum non conveniens presupposes that Illinois has jurisdiction, and presupposes that venue may be properly laid in more than one county. Weiser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 359, 456 N.E.2d 98.\nApplication for forum non conveniens is appropriate when it is more convenient to try the case in a county other than the one in which it was initially filed.\nThe movant must make some showing, therefore, that another forum is more convenient. Baker v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co. (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 674, 682, 500 N.E.2d 1113, 1119-20.\nWe cannot see how such a showing can be made in these circumstances.\nA grant or denial of a forum non conveniens motion is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard. Darnell v. Ralph Korte Equipment Co. (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 564, 566, 494 N.E.2d 1206, 1207.\nAbuse of discretion means clearly against logic. (Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 25 (4th ed. 1957).) This court, therefore, is asked to decide whether the circuit court acted illogically in refusing to transfer the case from Madison to either Bond or Montgomery County.\nThe initial focus of forum non conveniens is inconvenience. We believe that it is most difficult to demonstrate inconvenience when the alternative forum adjoins the county in which venue otherwise properly was laid. We hold that defendants did not show that Madison County was inconvenient.\nThe circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to move this trial to an adjoining county.\nThe circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGOLDENHERSH, and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HOWERTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Knapp, of Burroughs, Simpson, Hepler & Broom, of Edwardsville, for appellant.",
      "Charles R. Douglas, of Granite City, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JERRY DAIBER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants (Terry Duncan, Defendant-Appellant).\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201487\u20140805\nOpinion filed November 17, 1989.\nWilliam J. Knapp, of Burroughs, Simpson, Hepler & Broom, of Edwardsville, for appellant.\nCharles R. Douglas, of Granite City, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0566-01",
  "first_page_order": 588,
  "last_page_order": 590
}