With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on those issues was reached, and after plaintiffs documented the extent of their injuries to the defendants that the settlement occurred. The record does not support GEICO’s position that settlement was a foregone conclusion at the time the suit was filed. We believe that the trial court was correct in its determination that plaintiffs’ counsel played a substantial role in securing the settlement.” 75 Ill.App.3d at 213-14, 393 N.E.2d at 1083-84, 30 Ill.Dec. at 737. See also Guiel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 170 Vt. at 471, 756 A.2d at 782 (stating that “notwithstanding its bare statement that liability was conceded, [the subrogee] plainly benefited from the efforts of [the subrogor’s] attorney in securing its subrogation claim”); Bowen v. American Family Ins. Group, 504 N.W.2d at 607 (<HOLDING>); United Services Auto. Ass’n v. Hills, 172

A: holding that conditioning uninsured motorist coverage on insureds agreement to not settle with other tortfeasors contravenes the um act also declaring void other insurance provision of policy which operated to relieve insurer of payment if insured secured statutory minimum from other source
B: holding that while the subrogee argues that its own communication with the tortfeasors insurance company insured the protection of its subrogation interest it was the subrogors settlement with the tortfeasors insurer that made the payment of the subrogees interest possible
C: holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan
D: holding in the context of an attorney malpractice suit an insurance company is not vicariously liable for the acts of the attorney it selects to defend the insured while the insurer selected the attorney to defend the insureds and controlled the ultimate decision to settle or defend under the policy there is nothing in the record to indicate the insurer had any control over the details of the litigation as it was being conducted by the the attorney
B.