Dan Cray and Melissa Dakich appeared in the Cook County Record article entitled “IL Supreme Court: Court Foreclosure Filing Fees are Illegal Tax to Support State ‘Neighborhood Beautification Plan.'” Click here to read.
Policyholder Fails to Prove Exception to Exclusion – Appellate Court Upholds Judgment of No Coverage. Click here to read more.
Illinois court denies coverage for an $18.3 million settlement based on the policyholder’s intentional conduct. Click here to read more.
Illinois Appellate Court Greenlights Ride-Sharing Companies. Click here to read more.
In September 2018, the appellate department successfully convinced the First District Appellate Court to affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for a Cray Huber client. In Sarna v. The Club, et al., the Court opined in a Rule 23 Order that where the plaintiff sustained injury due to standing in the path of an opening door, the defendant property owner did not owe a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff because the risk of injury was open and obvious. The Court further opined that once the plaintiff had exited the premises with notice that he would not be permitted to reenter, he was no longer a business invitee.
In December 2017, the appellate department successfully argued in the First District Appellate Court that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, thus reinstating a trial victory for a Cray Huber client. In Perez v. Athletico of Oak Park, et al., the appellate court first granted the petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306, and then opined in a Rule 23 Order that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial because the expert testimony conflicted and it was the province of the jury to resolve any conflicts. According to the appellate court, it was entirely reasonable that the jury found that the plaintiff simply did not meet its burden to prove the elements of medical negligence.
Cray Huber attorneys Jeff Siderius, Melissa Dakich and Nicholas Graber were recently successful in persuading the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s denial of its client’s motion for summary judgment in Argonaut Midwest Ins. Co. v. DLC Services, Inc., et al., (Dec. 12, 2017). The insurer sought summary judgment in Lake County, Indiana Superior Court, but the trial court denied the motion. Cray Huber filed an interlocutory appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals granted review and held the insured’s nearly two-year delay in providing notice of the underlying slip and fall incident, and its nearly six-month delay in providing notice of the lawsuit, were unreasonably late as a matter of law. The court further held these delays prejudiced the insurer and that the parties seeking coverage had failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice created by the delays. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the decision of the trial court.
Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blinderman Constr. Co., Inc. et al., 2017 IL App (1st) 162234. This additional insured coverage dispute addresses whether a subcontractor’s insurer has a duty to defend the general contractor-additional insured where the underlying complaint contains no allegations of negligence against the subcontractor.
Pekin Ins. Co. v. Lexington Station, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 163284. This case is the latest in a series of cases from the First District Illinois appellate court to address the issue of the scope of additional insured insurance coverage. The case involves the typical fact situation where an employee of a downstream contractor is injured and sues the owner or general contractor, which in turn seeks coverage under the downstream contractor’s general liability insurance policy as an additional insured. The appellate court held, as it has in a series of recent cases, that the downstream contractor was potentially vicariously liable even though the contractor was not named as a defendant in the underlying lawsuit and the injured plaintiff did not allege negligence against it.
The appellate department successfully persuaded the First District Appellate Court to affirm the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment entered on an arbitration award in Martin v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, June 22, 2017. The plaintiff had participated in the court’s mandatory arbitration program but had failed to file a written notice of her rejection of the arbitration award within the timeframe set forth in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 93(a).