Source: https://secure.heylroyster.com/attorneys/details.cfm?pageID=4&attorneyID=15
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:11:12+00:00

Document:
Craig is partner at Heyl Royster and is Chair of the firm's Appellate practice group. He is also Vice Chair of the Professional Regulation/Licensure practice group. He began his career with Heyl Royster in 1994 after serving for two years as law clerk to Justice Carl A. Lund of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District.
Craig has extensive experience in the Illinois Appellate Courts, Illinois Supreme Court, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He has argued eleven cases before the Illinois Supreme Court, eight of which were the result of successful Petitions for Leave to Appeal. Craig has argued 34 cases before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed dozens of briefs in appeals decided without oral argument. He has also argued cases in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and Federal Circuit.
He served as President of the Illinois Appellate Lawyers Association from 2007 to 2008. He currently serves as Chair of the Amicus Committee for the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel (IDC).
Reeder v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. 2016 IL App (3d) 150252-U The Third District Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant in a case where plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to coverage under an insurance policy issued to the prior owner of car. The appellate court found that, following the sale of the car, the prior owners had no insurable interest in the vehicle. In addition, the court found that the omnibus clause of the policy could not be interpreted as offering coverage to the purchasers of the car.
Cripe v. Leiter 184 Ill. 2d 185 (1998) In a case of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act did not apply to claim that attorney charged excessive fees.
Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11 (2005) The statement: "If a premium charge does not appear, that coverage is not provided" appearing on an insurance policy declarations sheet does not address the issue of stacking and cannot reasonably be read as contradictory to the antistacking clause in the policy. The policy must be construed as a whole.
Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agency 174 Ill. 2d 513 (1996) Held: Although an insurer's conduct may give rise to both a breach of contract action and a separate and independent tort action mere allegations of bad faith or unreasonable and vexatious conduct, without more, do not constitute such a tort.
Armstrong v. Guigler 174 Ill. 2d 281 (1996) Held that a claim for breach of implied fiduciary duty is independent of and only incidental to the written contract and, as a result, the residual, five year statute of limitations applied.
General Casualty Ins. Co. v. Lacey 199 Ill. 2d 281 (2002) The validity of an exhaustion clause was governed by the law in effect at the time of issuance of the policy, not settlement with the liability insurer.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.