We want to welcome Rachel Mercer and Charisse Hartwig who recently joined the firm. Rachel practices insurance coverage litigation. Charisse practices products liability, commercial litigation and general tort litigation matters.
We want to wish congratulations to Drew Block for being named a partner at Cremer Spina as of January 1, 2013. Drew's practice focuses on the areas of construction, coverage and general tort litigation. Drew is admitted to practice in both Illinois and Ohio. We are happy to have Drew as a member of the partnership.
We want to welcome Alaa Elayyan who recently joined the firm. Alaa's practice centers on the areas of coverage, construction and general tort litigation.
Nicole Milos represented a property management company that was sued by a married couple who rented an apartment on the third floor of a large courtyard-style building in Chicago. An unknown assailant set fire to the property while the tenants slept. The Chicago Fire Department had to rescue Plaintiffs from their burning apartment. While exiting her apartment from the front window and onto the fire department ladder, one Plaintiff fell three stories. She sustained a four-part fracture of the numerous described by her treating physician as a traumatic rotator cuff injury and two non-displaced pelvic fractures. Both Plaintiffs alleged psychological injuries and offered medical testimony that after the fire they were diagnosed with PTSD, depression and anxiety. Only one Plaintiff was working at the time of the fire and she never returned to work. She claimed lost wages in excess of $800,000.00. Plaintiffs alleged that the property manager failed to install and maintain smoke detectors in the common areas of the building and that the property manager secured the entrances and exits of the building in such a fashion that Plaintiffs were unable to escape the fire. Plaintiffs further alleged that the security measures taken by the property manager delayed the Chicago Fire Department from effectuating the timely rescue of Plaintiffs from their third floor apartment. Defendant argued that the sole proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries was the arsonist fire. Plaintiffs asked the jury for a verdict in excess of $3,400,000.00. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant after 3.5 hours of deliberation. Bennie Johnson and Shirley Johnson v. Globe Realty, Inc. 2007 L 4462 (Cook County).
Stacy Fulco and Katherine Haussermann obtained summary judgment in Will County in a slip and fall case based on lack of notice. The area had been inspected within 20 minutes of the incident and the judge ruled that the store did not have actual or constructive notice. The plaintiff moved to strike the employee testimony regarding their common practice of inspecting the store to support that there was no notice since the employee could not specifically remember the inspection that was 20 minutes before the incident, even though it was documented and partially shown on video. The judge denied the motion to strike because it is proper for employees to testify about their common practices at work and the judge did not expect the employee to remember each inspection he performed of the store. The judge confirmed that stores do not have a duty of constant vigilance when inspecting for spills under a constructive notice analysis.
Mr. Jansen represents a manlift service company in a wrongful death case arising out of a fall from a manlift at Midwest Generation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mr. Jansen's client. The trial court denied plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Jansen's client. The trial court ruled that plaintiff had failed to raise a question of fact regarding the proximate cause of the decedent's accident. Plaintiff appealed. The Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District recently affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
In September 2012, Kimberly Ross and Nicole Milos won a summary judgment motion in a slip and fall on ice case in Kane County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that the ice on which he slipped in the defendant’s parking lot was an unnatural accumulation, caused from ice melting down a slope from a pile of snow pushed up against the building. Every witness who testified (including the plaintiff) either testified that there was no pile at all or that they did not remember any pile. The only testimony regarding any slope in the lot was that in the area of the accident, the ground was flat. There was also testimony of various witnesses that there was ice in the lot in the area of the accident, but that the ice was caused by pedestrian and vehicular traffic compacting snow from prior snowfalls. In response to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s wife, a post occurrence witness, provided two affidavits claiming there was a pile of snow against the building with an ice trail leading from it in “the area” of her husband’s fall. However, the court struck both affidavits, finding them to be based on inadmissible hearsay with regard to where her husband actually fell. The court granted the motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence that the ice on which the plaintiff fell was an unnatural accumulation. There was no evidence that there was any slope in the area of the accident, let alone an “unreasonably dangerous” slope.
Milos was recognized for her many outstanding contributions including serving on the Board of Directors, serving on the Committee Structure Initiative (CSI), serving as chair of the Tort Law Committee, and helping to guide the creation of the IDC's new publication, the Survey of Law.
Nicole Milos was appointed Chair of the IDC's Industry Relations Committee. The IDC Industry Relations Committee explores issues that are relevant to the legal community, providing a format to discuss hot button topics, including business and economic issues that impact lawyers and their clients.
Gary Jansen and Nicole Milos won a motion to dismiss on behalf of CNLC-PT, LLC f/k/a The Post-Tribune Company LLC and CNLC-STC, LLC f/k/a The Sun-Times Company in a case pending in the LaPorte Superior Court, LaPorte, Indiana. The motion to dismiss asserted that Plaintiffs' Complaint was a nullity because it was filed in violation of the automatic stay provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The motion further asserted that the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' personal injury claims continued to run and ultimately expired while defendants' bankruptcy litigation was pending. The Indiana court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs' case.
Mr. Jansen and Ms. Milos represented attorneys who were sued for legal malpractice following the attorneys' representation of clients in a corporate dispute surrounding a stock purchase transaction. After the corporate dispute resolved, Mr. Jansen and Ms. Milos relied upon the release executed regarding the corporate dispute as a basis to file a motion to dismiss the legal malpractice suit. Mr. Jansen and Ms. Milos argued that the plaintiff's release of the stock purchaser and his "attorneys" also released the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant law firm. The Illinois court granted the motion and held that the plaintiff contemplated the legal malpractice case at the time he executed the release agreement in the corporate dispute suit. In addition, the court concluded that the release of the stock purchaser's "attorneys," included the defendant law firm.
Two entities associated with an athletic training company, as well as an athletic trainer, sought defense and indemnity from an insurance carrier as additional insureds on a policy of insurance issued to a school district. In response to the carrier's complaint for declaratory judgment, the entities filed a counterclaim seeking, in part, statutory penalties pursuant to Section 155. John and Drew argued that the Section 155 claims were deficient, as the defendants were unable to plead any facts to show that the carrier acted "vexatiously or unreasonably" in denying coverage. The court agreed and dismissed the Section 155 claims with prejudice.
A customer at a suburban store slipped and fell in water at the front of the store. Using store surveillance footage and employee testimony, Stacy proved that the store did not have actual or constructive notice of the water on the floor prior to the fall. Summary judgment was granted for the store and the plaintiff appealed. The Second District Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling. (
Click here for a PDF version of the Appellate Court's opinion.)
We want to welcome Sean Conaghan who recently joined the firm. Sean's practice focuses primarily on general tort litigation, construction litigation and premises liability.
A customer of a north shore jewelry store sued the store owner claiming he allegedly lost her three-plus carat diamond earrings after he was entrusted with them for repair. John argued that the earrings were repaired and returned to the customer even though she had not yet paid the costs of repair. After the plaintiff rested, and a defense motion to bar opinion testimony on damages was granted, the court entered a directed verdict in favor of the jeweler finding the plaintiff failed to prove liability or damages. The plaintiff sued under theories of breach of contract, bailment and conversion, and sought punitive damages along with the claimed replacement value of the items.
Tom Pender has successfully defended a class action suit against EMC Insurance. On April 5, 2012, Judge William Mudge of the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois issued a ruling on Tom's motion for de-certification of class in the case of Frank C. Bemis, D.C. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company. The case is a $7 million class action suit filed on behalf of all medical providers in the State of Illinois seeking recovery of PPO reductions taken on patient bills since February of 2004. Dr. Bemis and the class members voluntarily signed on to the PPO agreements and agreed to take reduced payments, but later claimed that carriers were not entitled to take the reductions. In August of 2010, Judge Daniel Stack certified the class of Illinois providers in their action against EMC. Judge Stack subsequently retired and the PPO cases were re-assigned to Judge Mudge. Tom filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Stack's order based upon the recent Fifth District Appellate Court decision in Coy v. Travelers Insurance, 409 Ill.App.3d 1114 (5th Dist. 2011). In his recent order, Judge Mudge agreed that the Coy decision was binding precedent and de-certified the class against EMC. Of significance, the Court also found that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit and that "...EMC had a legal basis for taking PPO discounts."
We want to welcome Jennifer Goedken and Katherine Barber who recently
joined the firm. Jennifer's practice focuses primarily on international
law, general tort litigation, commercial litigation and internet law.
Katherine Barber practice focuses on international law, general tort
litigation and commercial litigation.
We want to wish congratulations to
Heather Kingery for being named a partner at Cremer Spina as of January 1, 2012. Heather's practice focuses on the areas of product liability, construction litigation and general tort litigation. We are happy to have Heather as a member of the partnership.
In September 2011, the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel (IDC) formed a Task Force to examine the Rule 213 Simultaneous Expert Disclosure Pilot Program implemented in Cook County. A member of the Task Force is representing the interests of the Defense Bar at all of the Pilot Program committee meetings. In addition, the Task Force is providing updates regarding the Pilot Program and drafting a Position Paper to address issues raised by this Program.
On November 11, 2011 Cremer Spina moved offices. We are now located at One N. Franklin, 10th Floor in Chicago. Please stop by and check out our new space.
Mr. Jansen represented a tavern in a wrongful death dram shop case filed in Indiana. Plaintiff filed suit against several establishments, alleging that each defendant contributed to the intoxication of the driver of a motorcycle who crashed and killed his passenger. Mr. Jansen was admitted pro hac vice to the Indiana court. Mr. Jansen filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which cited deposition testimony and affidavits, and argued that the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of a dram shop cause of action. The Indiana trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the tavern.
Mr. Jansen represented an attorney in a legal malpractice suit. Mr. Jansen filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 and argued that the action was untimely. The trial court granted Mr. Jansen's Motion to Dismiss. Thereafter, a Motion to Reconsider was filed. The trial court affirmed the dismissal, and authored an extensive opinion which held that the legal malpractice statute of limitations commenced running even though there had been no settlement or adverse judgment in the underlying case.
Mr. Jansen represented a manlift service company in a wrongful death case arising out of a fall from a manlift at Midwest Generation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mr. Jansen's client. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the trial court recently denied plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Jansen's client. The trial court ruled that plaintiff had failed to raise a question of fact regarding the proximate cause of the decedent's accident.
On November 29, 2010, DRI member, John P. Lynch, Jr., of Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen & Siegert, LLC in Chicago obtained a not guilty verdict for a general contractor from a jury in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiff, a 40-year-old carpenter, fell while crossing an excavation on a plank, which broke underneath him. He alleged that the general contractor required the use of the plank and that unsafe, congested worksite access contributed to his fall. He claimed permanent, disabling injuries resulting in a lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and that he was a candidate for a lumbar fusion estimated to cost $100,000. He never returned to carpentry after the incident. The plaintiff asked the jury for a verdict of over $2,500,000 at the close of the case. Issues of jobsite control and damages were hotly disputed
The jury found for the defendant general contractor, the only remaining defendant after others settled, after two hours of deliberation. Daniel Durham v. Dubin & Associates, Inc., 2007 L 1639 (Cook County)
We want to welcome John Hock, Kanav Bhatheja and Garrett Carter who recently joined the firm. John's practice focuses primarily on general tort litigation and construction litigation. Kanav's practice focuses primarily on general tort litigation, commercial litigation, internet law and international law and litigation. Garrett's practice focuses on commercial and general tort litigation.
Nicole was recently elected to serve a three-year term on the Board. Nicole began her involvement with the IDC's Young Lawyers Division and was active in various IDC events, committees and seminars. Since she began her involvement in 2006, Nicole has authored articles for the Quarterly, hosted various CLE presentations and planned charitable events like the Toy Drive and MS Walk. Nicole is the chair of the recently created Tort Committee and a member of the Industrial Relations Committee.
Corporate INTL presents legal awards as a mark of practice excellence for the world's leading law firms and lawyers in an array of countries and continents across the globe. Cremer Spina is proud to receive this international award of excellence and looks forward to continuing to provide our clients with the high-quality legal services that allowed us to win this award.
The new volume was published on May 12, 2011. Tom has been writing about Wrongful Death and Survival Act issues for IICLE since 1993, and was a featured speaker at IICLE's 2008 Seminar on the subject.
Tom Pender and Bill Cremer obtained dismissal of all counts in a case involving a multi-million dollar estate filed in federal court in Los Angeles against a Swiss lawyer and his law firm. In this case, a California lawyer accused the firm's Swiss clients of conspiracy to commit conversion and fraud in connection with their representation of the wife of a decedent who left a large estate in a Swiss trust. The clients had obtained a disbursement of the Swiss trust assets to the decedent's spouse through the Swiss courts. However, the plaintiff in our case, the California lawyer who had written one of the decedent's wills, challenged that disbursement and sought recovery of the funds from the lawyers and bank involved in the Swiss litigation. The California lawyer claimed that the estate proceeds rightfully belonged to his (the lawyer's) three adult children. We filed a motion to dismiss the California suit based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the Swiss defendants (even though they had represented clients from California in other cases), and also asserted a forum selection clause from one of the Trust documents (which set jurisdiction in Switzerland). In a recent ruling, the Los Angeles federal court granted the motion to dismiss the action in its entirety.
Cremer Spina had represented the grocery store in an underlying personal injury suit, in which it was alleged that the plaintiff died from injuries sustained in the store's parking lot. We were successful in securing additional insured coverage for our client in the underlying action from the carrier for the strip mall owner. That carrier subsequently settled the underlying case, without the client or its own carrier paying anything. The carrier who accepted the client's tender in the underlying action thereafter filed suit against the grocery store, seeking a reimbursement of the funds it had paid in defense and indemnity on behalf of the store. The theories of recovery were contractual indemnity and breach of contract. Tom and Jessica filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on the anti-indemnity provisions in the Landlord Tenant Act. Judge Novak of the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
After obtaining summary judgment before the trial court, the plaintiff appealed and Nicole successfully represented her client, a virtual manufacturer and patent holder, on appeal. The litigation involved allegations of strict liability and fraud. On appeal, Nicole argued that the plaintiff's lack of standing and the legislative interpretation of the relevant Illinois statutes formed the basis for the appellate court to affirm the trial court's ruling. The First District Appellate Court entertained oral argument regarding the matter in March 2011. In an order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
John Lynch represents a manufacturer that was assigned rights under various contracts and loan agreements during the course of its relationship with one of its suppliers. He filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois after evidence surfaced that the supplier was breaching those agreements and potentially diverting assets. He promptly obtained a TRO followed by a preliminary injunction, allowing their client to regain control of its assets and prevent any diversion of funds. A financial settlement was reached with a number of the defendants. Then, less than a year after the filing of the suit, John obtained a judgment against the remaining two defendants in the amount of $1,614,676.53, which included both treble and punitive damages. Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC v. Jacquard Associates, Inc., et al., 10 C 714.
Stacy Fulco obtained summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff slipped and fell in water that was on the floor of a retail establishment, resulting in a lumbar compression fracture. Using store surveillance footage, Stacy was able to prove to the court that there was no constructive notice of water on the floor to the store employees and not enough time had passed since the last employee inspected the area to impose notice. Summary judgment was also obtained on the allegation that the store should have had a "slip-free" surface because the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support that allegation.
Drew Block obtained dismissal with prejudice in a case where an individual tripped and fell on loose pavement near a road re-paving project. The plaintiff sought substantial damages against the road re-paving contractor's insurance company. Drew argued that the complaint was defective because Illinois law does not allow for direct actions against insurance companies for the alleged negligent acts of its insureds. Alternatively, he asserted that the complaint was time barred based on the fact that the complaint was filed one day after the two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions expired. He argued that because road re-paving projects do not constitute "improvements to real property," the four-year statute of limitations for construction negligence did not apply. The court agreed with both arguments, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
Kimberly Ross succeed on motions for summary judgment filed on behalf of a corporate client and an individual employee of the company, a sales manager. Kimberly represented a car dealership against claims of negligent hiring and retention following an altercation that occurred between the sales manager and a salesperson (the plaintiff). The court agreed that there was no evidence that the company had any knowledge that the sales manager had any violent propensities. The plaintiff was admittedly the agreessor in an altercation in which he was poised to physically harm the sales manager when the sales manager pulled from his pocket a folding knife that he used as a tool for opening boxes and cutting baloon strings. The altercation immediatly ended. Each employee called the police on the other, and eventually, the plaintiff was terminated. The plaintiff also sued the sales manager for common law assault. The sales manager sought summary judgment on his affirmative defense of self-defense. The court granted that motion as well, finding that the manager met all of the elements of proving the defense, including the belief of imminent bodily injury and a reasonable response to that imminent harm. Earlier in the case, the court also granted the company's motions to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for common law retaliatory discharge (i.e. retaliation for reporting the incident to the police) and under the Illinois Whistleblower Act.
John Lynch and Drew Block represented a general contractor sued by a carpenter who fell at a Chicago condominium construction project on the near west side. The plaintiff fell while crossing an excavation on a plank, which broke underneath him. He alleged that the general contractor provided the plank and that poor worksite access caused his fall. He claimed permanent, disabling injuries as a result of the fall resulting in a lumbar laminectomy/discectomy. His treating doctor advised him that he was a candidate for a lumbar fusion estimated to cost $100,000. He never returned to carpentry after the incident and made a loss of trade claim of $1.5 million. The plaintiff asked the jury for a verdict of $2,080,836 at the close of the case. Issues of jobsite control and damages were hotly disputed. The jury found for the defendant general contractor, the only remaining defendant, after two hours of deliberation. Daniel Durham v. Dubin & Associates, Inc., 2007 L 1639 (Cook County).
Kimberly Ross will be speaking on March 17, 2011 at an ISBA seminar entitled "Litigating, Defending, and Preventing Employment Discrimination Cases: Practice Updates for the Illinois Human Rights Act" on the topic of practice tips for defendants.
On October 14, 2010, the Honorable Morton Denlow, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, spoke at the offices of Cremer Spina to members of the Illinois Association of Defense Counsel's Young Lawyers Division about best practices for successful settlement. With more than 20 members attending the lunchtime lecture, the event was a tremendous success, as Magistrate Judge Denlow shared his perspective on how to best approach settlement and how to prepare for negotiations involving a mediator.
Cremer Spina proudly served as a participating sponsor of the 2010 MACC Fund Golf Outing held on August 16, 2010 in West Bend, Wisconsin. The Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer ("MACC") Fund continues its great work to eliminate childhood cancer. Since it was founded 30 years ago, the MACC Fund has contributed $36 million to pediatric cancer research, impacting children throughout the country as the successful protocols developed through this research become the standard for patient care everywhere. The MACC Fund's efforts have been instrumental in increasing the cure rate from 15% to 80%.
Kimberly Ross represented a lawyer and his law firm who were sued for defamation. The allegedly defamatory statement was made to a vocational rehabilitation consultant, who had been retained by a third-party administrator of a workers compensation claim. The defendants represented the injured worker against her employer in that claim. The consultant had retained a doctor (the plaintiff in the defamation case) to evaluate the employee and render opinions. The attorney wrote a letter to the consultant to express his disagreement with the doctor's opinions. The plaintiff (doctor) alleged that one of the statements in the letter insinuated that the doctor's opinions could be purchased. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that under Section 586 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, they were absolutely privileged to have made the statement about the doctor, as the statement was made in the context of the workers compensation litigation. Specifically, the Restatement provides that an attorney is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding. The defendants argued that the purpose of the statement about the doctor was to try and convince the vocational rehabilitation counselor not to rely on the doctor's opinions at trial. They also argued that since the letter referred to the litigation (the attorney stated that he could not wait to cross examine the consultant at trial), the letter fell within the attorney litigation privilege. The plaintiff argued that because the statement was made to a third person (not a party or attorney), the absolute privilege should not apply. The defendants responded that because the vocational consultant was a potential witness in the litigation (which the plaintiff admitted), this was enough to bring the statement within the privilege. A Cook County judge agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment on August 26, 2010.
Stacy Fulco obtained summary judgment for her client where the plaintiff alleged that she was injured at work by a malfunctioning coffee brewer. The plaintiff alleged that she was not properly trained or warned about the risks of being burned by a coffee brewer. The manufacturer of the coffee brewer also filed a summary judgment motion but was voluntarily dismissed after the motion was filed. The court granted summary judgment holding that the plaintiff was properly trained on how to use the coffee brewer and advised about the risks of the coffee brewer and her training did not proximately cause the incident.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, affirmed the summary judgment obtained by Ed Siegert in favor of a gasoline distributor in a wrongful death case arising out of alleged exposure to benzene in gasoline. Plaintiff alleged that her late husband died as a result of illness brought on by exposure to benzene in gasoline while he worked as a service station attendant for approximately 27 years. Ed represented a company which allegedly distributed gasoline to the service station during the years in question. The trial court granted dismissal of the strict liability counts alleged against the distributor pursuant to a motion brought under Section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, commonly referred to as the Distributor Statute. The trial court thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of the distributor on a remaining negligent failure to warn claim as plaintiff failed to establish the distributor possessed superior knowledge of the allegedly dangerous nature of benzene in gasoline at the time the decedent was exposed to that hazard. In order to survive summary judgment on this issue, Plaintiff needed to provide some evidence to establish that the distributor knew that exposure to benzene could cause the cancer which allegedly harmed decedent, and possessed of that knowledge, knew or should have known that harm might or could occur if no warning was given. Plaintiff failed to meet that burden. The Appellate Court affirmed judgment in favor of the distributor on both the strict liability and negligence counts. Schaefer vs. Texor Petroleum Company, Inc., Appellate Court of Illinois, Third Dist., No. 3-09-0980 (July 27, 2010).
Josh Yeager successfully argued that the Courts of Illinois lacked personal jurisdiction over a Mexican hotel owner, sued in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal of the Mexican hotel owner to the Appellate Court of the State of Illinois, First Judicial District. Following full briefing and oral argument, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the Mexican hotel owner.
Stacy Fulco obtained summary judgment in a case where an elderly man fell in front of a grocery store and suffered significant injuries, totaling approximately $150,00 in medical specials. The complaint alleged that ice from a faulty building drainage system caused the fall but the plaintiff did not see ice and no witnesses saw the fall or saw where the plaintiff fell. Stacy argued that the plaintiff could not prove his case because he did not know what caused him to fall or where he fell. In the alternative, Stacy argued that any ice on the sidewalk was a natural accumulation as there was no evidence of a problem with the building. The court agreed with both arguments and granted summary judgment.
Heather Kingery successfully defended a client in a negligence and intentional tort action, culminating in a jury verdict in favor of her client. On the eve of trial, opposing counsel dismissed the negligence action, announcing for the first time his intent to seek punitive damages against the defendant. Following extensive motion practice on the issue, the Court agreed with the defense that the plaintiff could not seek punitive damages on the intentional tort, despite the dismissal of the negligence count. During trial, the plaintiff claimed that he suffered permanent and debilitating injuries to his right shoulder, wrist, elbow and ankle following an altercation with the defendant. He sought over $475,000 in compensation, including reimbursement for medical bills totaling $90,000. After seven days of trial, the jury deliberated less than one hour before returning a defense verdict. 2010 L 10987
Cremer Spina proudly served as a participating sponsor for the 2010 Grocer's Insurance/Argo Select Charity Golf Tournament held in West Linn, Oregon on July 26, 2010, benefiting Portland, Oregon's Community Transitional School. More than 4,000 children of homeless families in the Portland community have been educated at the school since it first opened its doors.
Nicole Milos received the 2010 Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Rising Star Award. The award is presented annually to a young attorney who has exhibited exemplary performance in the practice of law, demonstrated commitment to the defense bar and the association, and has been involved in significant projects that had a positive result on the practice of law. Ms. Milos was nominated by her peers who cited her leadership within the YLD and her formidable abilities as a litigator.
John Lynch represented a general contractor in what began as a simple contract dispute after project owners chose not to proceed with the construction of a building. A demand for payment of outstanding sums was made after the project was terminated. The owners responded with accusations of contractual breaches on the part of the general contractor and other allegations of misconduct. Given the owners' response, the general contractor filed suit with the goal of obtaining payment on the outstanding invoices. The owner countersued and the matter proceeded to trial. After a weeklong trial, the trial judge entered a directed verdict as to all but one of the owners' claims. Thereafter, the jury found in favor of the general contractor on all issues and awarded it over twice the amount of the outstanding invoices. The jury awarded the general contractor nearly twice the amount of its pretrial settlement demand. E. Anthony, Inc. v. Dr. Michael and Elizabeth Ryan, 06 L 10477
We want to welcome Brian Marquez who recently joined the firm. Brian's practice focuses primarly on product liability, commercial litigation and international law and litigation.
Cremer Spina co-sponsored the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel's participation in the 17th Annual Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation's Race Judicata. Nicole Milos, Kristina Beck and Geoffrey Waguespack represented Cremer Spina at the race. Race Judicata is an annual 5K run/walk that benefits the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation.
John Lynch represents a provider of prepaid wireless voice and data services to consumers. He sued several of their client's competitors in federal court alleging a systematic scheme to deceive consumers by failing to provide them with the wireless minutes promised under various promotional programs in violation of the Lanham Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In short, he alleged and ultimately proved that the defendants arbitrarily depleted prepaid accounts without the consumers' knowledge or permission. On April 27, 2010, he obtained a judgment against the defendants in the amount of $15,340,089.70, including both enhanced and punitive damages, and obtained a permanent injunction against them as well.
Read about this case in Chicago Breaking Business.
PlatinumTel v. EZ Stream, U.S. Mobile, Ramsey Natour, et al., 08 C 1062.
Heather Kingery represented a commercial driver sued for negligence following an intersection collision with another vehicle. Following the impact, the plaintiff suffered from emotional trauma and had permanent scarring on her face. The plaintiff claimed that the commercial driver ran a red light and collided with her vehicle as she attempted to make a left hand turn. Her pre-trial demand was $300,000. At trial, the plaintiff was challenged as to her version of events and she and her witnesses were impeached several key points. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Guillermina Molina v. John Hill d/b/a Century Pipe Organ Co., Inc. 2008 L 10935 (Cook County)
We want to welcome Tara McTague who recently joined the firm. Tara's practice focuses on insurance coverage and general litigation.
We want to welcome Tim Hoerman back to Cremer Spina. Tim is returning to the firm as a Senior Counsel. Tim's practice is concentrated on catastrophic injuries arising from construction and transportation accidents. Tim also has experience in commercial and residential real estate transactions, and counsels small businesses.
John Lynch represented a rubber mill manufacturer sued by a woman who caught her dominant hand in the nip point of the mill. She lost her fourth and fifth fingers and a joint from her index finger and a bone from her right hand were removed as a result. The plaintiff claimed that the mill failed to contain proper guarding (a body bar in particular) as recommended by ANSI B28.1 and that this allegedly defective condition caused her injury. The plaintiff asked the jury for $3,800,000. The jury found for the defendant. Pamela Lawler v. Reliable Welding, 2005 L 463 (Kane County).
Bill Cremer will be the featured speaker at a presentation given to international brokers Marsh Mexico and their hotel customers on methods to reduce exposure to U.S. claims and lawsuits. The presentation will take place in Mexico City on March 3, 2010.
We want to welcome Jessica Burtnett who recently joined the firm. Jessica's practice focuses on general tort litigation.
We want to welcome Jeanne Zeiger who recently joined the firm as a senior counsel. Jeanne's practice is concentrated on insurance coverage litigation and appellate practice. Jeanne brings years of experience in these fields and she is a known speaker on the topics.
John Lynch represents a component parts manufacturer and supplier that was assigned rights under various contracts and loan agreements during the course of its relationship with one of its suppliers. As evidence surfaced that the supplier was breaching the agreements and potentially diverting funds, John filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois and obtained a TRO and then a preliminary injunction allowing his client to regain control of its assets and prevent further diversion of funds. Several of the defendants are now cooperating with the plaintiff in the recovery of funds.
We want to wish congratulations to
Nicole Milos for being named a partner at Cremer Spina as of January 1, 2010. Nicole has been with Cremer Spina since the beginning of her legal career. Her practice focuses on the areas of general tort litigation, construction litigation, employer's liability, professional liability, premises liability, product liability, commercial litigation and insurance coverage. In addition to her busy practice, Nicole is highly involved as a committee member of the Illinois Associate of Defense Trial Counsel - Young Lawyers Division. We are happy to have Nicole as a member of the partnership.
We want to welcome
Drew Block who recently joined the firm. Drew's practice centers on the defense of construction, coverage and general tort cases.
Gary Jansen and Nicole Milos successfully argued that the assignment that formed the basis for Plaintiff's common law fraud claim was void. The court held that the assignment was void as a matter of law. The court previously dismissed the strict liability claim, finding that the Moorman doctrine barred Plaintiff from recovering economic losses under the tort theory of strict liability.
Ed Siegert obtained summary judgment in favor of a gasoline distributor in a wrongful death case filed in Will County, alleging the decedent developed Myelodysplastic Syndrome as a result of exposure to gasoline sold by distributor which was alleged to have contained benzene. The trial court found no duty to warn under the circumstances of this case.
An insured was sued in a personal injury action involving the use of a forklift on the insured's premises. The insured tendered its defense to the carrier of the company that employed the injured plaintiff. The employer's carrier refused to defend the insured. The insured's own commercial general liability carrier was then forced to defend the insured. Brian filed a declaratory action against the employer's carrier, arguing that the employer's carrier was obligated to defend the insured. The trial court agreed with that position and ruled that the employer's carrier had breached its duty to defend the insured in the underlying personal injury action. The trial court further ruled that, as a result of its breach of the duty to defend, the employer's carrier was estopped from asserting any coverage defenses to limit its obligation to indemnify the insured in the underlying personal injury action.
John has been active in the IDC, the voice of the defense bar in Illinois, for over 15 years as has served on the board since 2002. He was recently elected to serve a third three-year term on the board, and is a member of the Membership Task Force and is liaison to the Employment Law Committee.
Stacy Fulco and Katherine Haussermann successfully argued that their client did not have notice of an alleged defect on the floor to impose a duty so summary judgment was granted.
Gary Jansen and Nicole Milos successfully argued that Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the Certificate of Warranty by failing to submit the dispute to the Architect for resolution prior to filing suit as required by the Architect's Decision clause of the warranty. The court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff's action. Mr. Jansen and Ms. Milos were previously successful in dismissing Plaintiff's breach of implied warranty claim.
The sitting sheriff of DuPage County, John Zaruba, filed a defamation action against a former primary opponent, Tim Connell, and the Daily Herald arising out of a flyer that appeared in the paper the day before the election. The sheriff indicated he was seeking millions of dollars in damages. The trial court, however, found that the flyer was not defamatory and that the defendants did not act with malice, and awarded summary judgment to all defendants. The decision was not appealed.
Ed Siegert successfully argued that the Courts of Illinois lacked jurisdiction over his client, an Italian logistics company sued in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Tom Pender and Bill Cremer just recently obtained a dismissal of their client, a Swiss medical prosthesis manufacturer from a personal injury action pending in Utah based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff in the case had two shoulder prostheses that failed, both of which were manufactured in Switzerland by the client company, but distributed worldwide by a separate German entity. This same manufacturer client had previously been sued in Utah federal court, but its prior counsel had never sought dismissal based on personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff in this case opposed the motion based, in part, on the argument that the manufacturer had already submitted to jurisdiction in Utah in the prior case. Nonetheless, the court's memorandum opinion adopted all of the findings of fact and legal arguments presented in the motion filed by the defense team from Cremer Spina, resulting in the client's dismissal.
John Lynch filed suit in DuPage County on behalf of a contractor to recover approximately $300,000 for remodeling work performed on a suburban couple's home. The couple refused to pay for much of the work, although they moved into the house after completion, and successfully moved to dismiss the case on the basis that they were not provided with a consumer rights pamphlet, as required by the Home Repair & Remodeling Act. The contractor complied will all other aspects of the act, and the failure to provide the pamphlet was inadvertent. The dismissal was reversed on appeal with the court finding that such an outcome could not possibly have been intended by the legislature. This decision is a matter of first impression and is already the topic of numerous articles and blogs. The opinion will be published and may ultimately be reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court. Artisan Design Build, Inc. v. Bilstrom (2d Dist., No 2-08-08550).
Bill Cremer was invited to attend the FERMA symposium in Prague in October. FERMA is the Federation of European Risk Managers Associations. Peter den Dekker the risk manager of Stork, a Dutch multinational corporation and a longtime Cremer Spina client, was elected President of FERMA. Congratulations Peter!
Gary Jansen and Nicole Milos successfully argued that Indiana law applied to a third party action against an employer seeking contribution. Mr. Jansen and Ms. Milos argued that the conflicts analysis proved that Indiana had the most significant relationship to the claim filed in Illinois. The court agreed and dismissed the third party complaint with prejudice.
Cremer Spina partners Bill Cremer and Josh Yeager have been retained to defend a Kansas based manufacturer of air conditioning refrigerant sued by victims of a tragic bus fire in Panama City, Panama in 2006. The bus fire killed and severely burned dozens of passengers. The suit alleges the refrigerant was an accelerant of the fire. The suit is pending in Kansas state court.
Stacy Fulco obtained a quick defense verdict where the plaintiff claimed she tripped in a store due to a raised piece of metal in the floor but the evidence showed other potential causes of her fall.
An insured was sued in a trademark action based on allegations that the insured was infringing the service marks used by a national auto products retailer. The insured sought a defense from its commercial general liability carrier, claiming the allegations were covered under the "advertising injury" provisions of its CGL policy. John and Brian filed a declaratory action against the insured and argued that the carrier had no duty to defend because the trademark action sought injunctive relief rather than money damages. The trial court agreed with that position and awarded summary judgment in favor on John and Brian's client.
Bill Cremer and Josh Yeager have been invited to give a presentation by the Spanish based hotel chain Occidental Hotels and Resorts. The presentation will take place during the annual meeting of its general managers and will include topics such as best practices in investigating claims involving US guests. The meeting will be held in the Mexican Riviera Maya at one of the hotel chain's all-inclusive resorts. Cremer Spina serves as national counsel for all Occidental Hotel's claims and suits in the US.
A general contractor tendered its defense and indemnity to a subcontractor's insurer claiming it was an additional insured on its policy. The tender was rejected on the basis that the incident in question, a fire that destroyed a house, did not arise out of the "ongoing operations" of the subcontractor's work, as required by the policy, since the subcontractor had completed its work several months before. The general contractor and its insurer filed suit claiming that the work was "ongoing" since it was not properly completed. The trial court, addressing an issue of first impression, awarded John's client summary judgment and interpreted "ongoing operations" in the manner he proposed. There are no published Illinois decisions that address this issue.
"Blast From the Past" - Cremer Spina partner Bill Cremer is currently participating in a law student research project with Miami University Law School. The project involves an in depth study of a prior high profile case. Miami University law students were asked to select a high profile case that was of interest to them and conduct an intensive look into all aspects of the case. The student selected Yates vs the Chicago National League Ball Club. Yates was the first foul ball injury case involving a major league baseball team that went to verdict. Bill Cremer was lead trial counsel representing the Chicago Cubs in Yates. Bill is currently consulting with the law students sharing his experiences in defending the case including his trial strategies employed in the case. Yates was the first case which deviated from the well established rule of law that a ball park was not liable for injuries caused by the ball in play. Yates was decided in 1992.
