Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur
L. Dunne, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE GOLDBERG DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
Comet Casualty Company (Comet) filed suit for declaratory judgment regarding coverage of its policyholder, James Holloman. The trial court released Comet from its duty of coverage. Odell Walker, a defendant, has appealed.
This is a virtually agreed chronological factual statement:
July 17, 1977 — Comet issued a liability policy on a Pontiac automobile owned by James Holloman.
September 12, 1977 — Holloman also bought a Chevrolet automobile. He took no steps to accomplish application of the policy to the Chevrolet.
November 3, 1977 — Holloman sold the Pontiac to his brother by endorsement of the certificate of title.
November 28, 1977 — Holloman was involved in an automobile accident while he was driving the Chevrolet.
November 28, 1977 — Holloman notified Comet's agent, the County Insurance Service, Inc., of the accident by telephone and requested amendment of the policy to substitute the Chevrolet automobile as a replacement car. In due course Comet issued a declaration to be appended to the policy showing: "Effective Date of Endorsement, November 29, 1977."
April 3, 1978 — Suit was filed by Odell Walker against Holloman.
September 7, 1979 — Suit was filed against Holloman by Patricia Sabella as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband. In due course Holloman filed a petition in bankruptcy.
September 19, 1980 — Comet filed its motion for declaratory judgment.
Comet properly joined all interested parties. This included Holloman the policyholder, Odell Walker, and Patricia Sabella as administrator. In the appeal to this court, the only notice of appeal purports to be filed by Walker. Counsel for Walker have filed one brief which is labeled as being on behalf of "Defendants-Appellants." Comet first claims in this court that the notice of appeal filed only by Walker was ineffective to permit this court to review the rights of Holloman as regards the policy in question.
• 1 We find and conclude that this court has power "to make a complete adjudication of the issues" so that "all claims of error will be reviewed in this proceeding." (Schatz v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1972), 51 Ill.2d 143, 145, 281 N.E.2d 323. See also William Aupperle & Sons, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (1978), 62 Ill. App.3d 842, 845-46, 379 N.E.2d 400.) As the supreme court has pointed out in Schatz (51 Ill.2d 143, 145), a reviewing court is fully authorized by Supreme Court Rule 366(a) (87 Ill.2d R. 366(a)) to "`grant any relief * * * that the case may require.'" (See also Gatto v. Walgreen Drug Co. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 513, 520, 337 ...