2 tortfeasors, 1 accident = 2 under-insured motorist claims with 1 policy limitBy Jason G. SchutteNovember 2016Can an insurance carrier “stack” liability policy payments received by a claimant as a set off against the claimant’s underinsured motorist claim? The First Appellate Court says no, but limits insurance company exposure in Illinois Emcasco Insurance Company v. Tufano.
2-622 certificate of merit not necessary in simple medical battery claimBy Jason G. SchutteFebruary 2016Attorneys, claims adjusters and risk management professionals should pay close attention to the facts of Fiala v. Bickford Senior Living Group, LLC and the allegations within the plaintiff’s complaint.
Absolute immunityBy Robert T. ParkAugust 2016A look at the court decisions that protect judges, public officers making statements in their official capacity, guardians ad litem, court-appointed experts and child representatives.
Attorneys speak, documents do not: Pleading standards of Section 2-610By Allison M. HuntleyMay 2016At the pleading stage of litigation, use Section 2-610 as your guide. Avoid using “creative” responses that miss the mark. When your opponent uses phrases like “the document speaks for itself,” consider bringing this to the Court’s attention. It very well may help you win your case.
A brief primer on Rule 191(b) affidavitsBy Troy E. HaggestadJuly 2016When in doubt, seek a continuance supported by an affidavit, signed by your client, that complies with Rule 191(b). Failure to do so will likely constitute a waiver of any subsequent argument that dismissal or summary judgment was premature.
Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.: The Illinois Supreme Court clarifies extent of liability to a subcontractor employee by an owner or general contractorBy Richard Lee Turner, Jr.November 2016In its recent decision in Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Illinois Supreme Court has offered further guidance on not only what constitutes sufficient control for purposes of liability under §414 of the Restatement, but also what is sufficient to establish duty and potential liability under the theory of “negligent hiring” of a contractor or subcontractor under Restatement (Second) of Torts §411 (1965); and, further, what is necessary to impose liability on an owner for the existence of a “dangerous condition” on the land under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §343 (1965).
Comparative fault not trumped by summary judgment on liabilityBy Jason G. Schutte & B. Moses BrownAugust 2016Illinois Appellate Court demonstrates that a ruling of summary judgment on duty and breach of duty against Defendant does not bar Defendant from presenting evidence on negligence and arguing comparative fault at trial.
Failure to yield yields question of factBy Jason G. SchutteJanuary 2016The recent case of Griffin v. Cohen and Co-Co Pools, Inc. is a very good example of how difficult it is to win a summary judgment motion arising from an intersection car collision based upon the sole proximate cause defense.
Fee petitions: Kaiser and beyondBy James J. AyresNovember 2016Counsel seeking an award of reasonable attorney fees by a circuit court would be well advised to not only ensure that the content of the billable time entries comply with Kaiser but also that the evidence sought to be introduced in support of the fees claimed complies with Aliano.
Illinois Rule of Evidence 1006By David P. HuberJanuary 2016Illinois Rule of Evidence 1006, which is underutilized and perhaps underappreciated, is useful in that it promotes efficiency and focus on the pertinent matters which need to be addressed by a court.
Interstate depositions and discovery—Making discovery easierBy Patrick M. KinnallyJuly 2016Take a look at 735 ILCS 35/1-- Illinois’ version of the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act. It will save you time and a lot of your client’s money.
Lost Electronically Stored Information (ESI)By Jeffrey A. ParnessJuly 2016A review of the basic features of the new FRCP 37(e), its counterparts in Illinois, and its impact on all Illinois lawyers, wherever they practice.
Preserving substitute service with the testimony of the process serverBy Ken StalkfleetJune 2016The Appellate Court’s recent decision in Abbington Trace Condominium v. Christine McKellar serves as a reminder of how little needs to be done to preserve substitute service in some cases.
Revisions to civil jury instructions regarding contractsBy Hon. Barbara CrowderJune 2016An overview of the changes in the jury instructions regarding Contracts found in the 700.00 sections of the Illinois Pattern Instructions (Civil) that were issued in April 2016.
Serving a dissolved company: Isfan v. Longwood TowerBy Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Daniel BurleySeptember 2016How does a party serve a dissolved entity? It depends on whether the company is a limited liability entity or a corporation. The distinction is important, as improperly serving a dissolved entity can scuttle a case.
Six-person jury law found unconstitutionalBy Robert T. ParkFebruary 2016In Kakos v. Butler on December 21, Cook County Circuit Judge William Gomolinksi handed down an Order and Opinion that found PA 98-1132 unconstitutional because it violates the directive of the Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 13.
What does “shall” mean?By Patrick M. KinnallySeptember 2016The use of the word “shall” in a statute, apparently, is not dispositive of legislative intent, it seems.
Who signs the certificate of service? Rule 12(b)(3) and the pitfalls of noncomplianceBy Michael M. ShemkusNovember 2016Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12 sets forth the requirements for proving service of documents in state court. It distinguishes between the certificate of an attorney and an affidavit by a nonattorney. A party’s failure to appreciate the difference between the two can prove fatal, as the defendant in People v. Tlatenchi learned the hard way.
Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company: Stock discovery objections fail to pass muster with 5th DistrictBy Richard L. Turner, Jr.June 2016In a decision issued on May 16, 2016, the 5th District Appellate Court in Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company provided an analysis of the problems inherent in replying with stock objections in discovery responses based upon relevancy or privilege, without detailing or adequately providing a basis for such objections.