√─┌╬─ ┐│ LaserRetrieve Version 2.4É %Thursday August 23, 1990 1:55 am │└╬─┘┌╬─┐│à :169 ILL. APP. 3D 702 ELLIOTT V. INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGEà 1988å │├╬─K┤│ faith conduct in refusing to give written consent. Plaintiffs also argueà D││ that defendant has waived its right to arbitration because of itsî "││ wrongful and vexatious conduct.« ││à 9>> 1 Under Illinois law, both estoppel and waiver must beÉ G││ affirmatively pleaded or they are waived. (Dayan v. McDonald's Corp.ë H││ (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 972, 466 N.E.2d 958.) A defense not properlyê ││ pleaded is deemed waived although it may appear to be within the evidence. ││ (M. Loeb Corp. v. Brychek (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 1122, 424Æ E││ N.E.2d 1193.) Here, plaintiffs did not plead estoppel or waiver inï F││ count I of their complaint although they did raise the doctrines asè ││ affirmative defenses to defendant's counterclaim, which claim is not before ││ this court. Moreover, defects in pleadings cannot be cured by argument.å >││ (Burnett v. Donath (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 131, 468 N.E.2dÆ I││ 501.) These rules regarding the doctrines of estoppel and waiver applyç ││ to situations in which a plaintiff raises the defenses in his pleadings as ││ well as when they are asserted as affirmative defenses by a defendant.ç ││╬ │└╬─M┘ <ESC>=HitList <ENTER>=Print <F3>&<F2>=HitWord <ALT-F6>=Internal Searchä ≥p■p≤■àp╚╬╬╬╬╬┬êpä╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╤╦p6>=Internal Searchä ≥p■p≤■
