Consecutive Wins for Coverage Team
Coverage – LEF, Trial Win On Illinois Rule 137. After a weeklong bench trial, Michelle M. Bracke obtained a finding that Plaintiff violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 by verifying a complaint and pursuing a legal action that had no basis in law or fact. Plaintiff pursued our insurer client as an assignee of the policyholder, seeking what we argued was a false and inflated claim, and also improperly retaining funds the insurer had earlier paid for repairs. The Court ordered Plaintiff to repay the prior payment, to be held in escrow for the benefit of the homeowner. The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s bad faith claim and held that our client was entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from Plaintiff as a sanction for Plaintiff’s violation of the statutory good faith pleading requirement.
Coverage – LEF, Obtained Summary Judgment On Concealment and Fraud Provision. Michelle M. Bracke obtained summary judgment in favor of our insurer client that the insured violated the Concealment and Fraud provision of the Policy by submitting an inflated proof of loss and claim to the insurer, and then filing suit for that amount. The Court agreed with our contention that while intent may ordinarily be a question of fact, no reasonable juror could conclude that an obviously inflated claim was innocent or a mistake. Judgment was entered dismissing the insured’s entire claim and lawsuit against the insurer.
Brandon Cavanaugh and Jeff Pavlovich recently obtained a defense verdict in a week long trial. The client was a road paving and general contractor. Plaintiff claimed she sustained severe injuries, including a fractured femur and psychological issues, after she drove into a cut-out portion of a roadway where defendant was performing work. Plaintiff argued that the warnings placed on the roadway were inadequate and did not comply with Illinois Department of Transportation standards. The Defense was able to show that Plaintiff took no precaution to protect her own safety. The jury agreed and returned their verdict in favor of the defense.
Appellate Guidance on Suit Limitation Periods
In Garcia v. Sanchez‑Lopez, 2025 IL App (1st) 241322 (Dec 9, 2025), Garcia was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2015 caused by an uninsured driver. At the time of the accident, Garcia maintained uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage through American Family Insurance. Six years later, Garcia filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of UM coverage for the loss. American Family relied on policy language stating that it “may not be sued under the Uninsured Motorist coverage on any claim that is barred by the tort statute of limitations.” The trial court interpreted this provision to require Garcia to file his UM within the applicable tort statute of limitations, either Illinois two-year period or Wisconsin’s three-year period, and dismissed the action as untimely. On appeal, the First District reversed the dismissal. The court stated that, under Illinois law, actions seeking coverage under an insurance contract are governed by the 10-year statute of limitations, absent clear and specific policy language to the contrary. The appellate court held that American Family’s policy language was ambiguous. The provision neither specified a clear time period nor identified the event that would trigger the limitations period. Instead, it referred vaguely to the tort statute of limitations without citing a specific statute, did not indicate which jurisdiction’s law should apply (the policyholder’s residence or the accident location), or clarifying whether customary tolling rules, such as those for a minor, would apply. Because the policy failed to clearly define a contractual limitation period, it could not displace the default 10-year statute of limitations applicable to coverage actions. Accordingly, the appellate court held that Garcia’s UM coverage was not time-barred.
Appellate Guidance On Animal Control Act/Landlord
Luchetti versus Hall (January 26, 2026, Second Appellate District, 22-LA-2112) The Appellate Court upheld summary judgment, dismissing the Landlord of a rental property in which the co-defendant Tenant possessed a Pitbull dog which injured a minor. Minor plaintiff, through his mother, filed suit against the Landlord under common law negligence and the Illinois Animal Control Act 510 ILCS 516 theories, alleging personal injuries to the minor. Defendant owned a two-story townhouse. She lived in the top floor and rented out the bottom floor to a Tenant. The Tenant owned a Pitbull named Maximus. The minor was visiting the Tenant on May 12, 2022. The minor’s mother fell, and when the minor went to assist his mother, Maximus ran towards the minor and latched on to his arm. The police arrived and killed the dog.
The complaint alleged that the Landlord violated the Illinois Animal Control Act which provides:
“If a dog or other animal comes without provocation, and attacks, or attempts to attack, or injures any person who is conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages to such person for the full amount of the injury proximately caused thereby. The ACT defines owner as any person having a right of property in the animal, or keeps or harbors an animal or who has it in his care, or acts as custodian, or knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her”.
Plaintiffs allege that the Landlord knowingly permitted the dog to remain on the premises. The Court rejected this theory by noting that Maximus was confined to the premises rented to the Tenant and the Landlord did not occupy the same premises. The Court further emphasized that though the landlord could access the lower level and visit, she neither lived nor stayed in the lower level. Plaintiff further failed to show that Landlord had control over the animal at the time of the injury or immediately prior to the injury. Plaintiff was unable to put forth evidence that the Landlord harbored Maximus or controlled Maximus at the time of or immediately before the injury. The Appellate Court also rejected plaintiff’s common law negligence claims against the Landlord as a property owner. Plaintiffs alleged that the Landlord, under a Premises Liability theory, owed a duty to invitees onto her property. The court rejected this argument as well, noting that the Landlord had not retained control over the lower level of the townhome which was demised to Tenant.
The Court found that summary judgment was appropriate even though the Landlord was aware that a Pitbull was in the rented bottom half of the townhome and that the Landlord had provided some level of care to the dog on occasions before the occurrence. Because the bottom portion of the townhome was demised pursuant to a rental agreement, the Landlord did not owe a duty under a theory of Premises Liability.
Appellate Guidance on AWW, Drug Tests, and Section 19(k) Exposure
In Ramirez v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (1st) 242467WC (Oct. 3, 2025), the First District addressed two recurring issues in Illinois workers’ compensation litigation: evidentiary foundation for wage proof and the limits of drug test evidence in avoiding penalties. The claimant sustained a compensable ankle fracture, and while the arbitrator awarded TTD along with penalties and attorney’s fees, the Commission modified the award by recalculating the average weekly wage (AWW) using payroll records and vacating penalties based on the carrier’s reliance on a positive drug test. The circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the court held that the payroll records were improperly admitted without proper foundation, rendering the AWW and resulting TTD calculation unsupported and requiring remand for recalculation without that evidence. The court ruled that merely entering the wage statements into evidence without testimony that they were kept in the ordinary course of business was not adequate foundation to qualify for the business records exception to hearsay. The appellate court also reinstated the arbitrator’s award of penalties and fees, clarifying that while a positive drug test may be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a carrier’s conduct in denying TTD benefits, a positive result lacking any information regarding the quantity of drugs in the petitioner’s system or corroborating evidence of impairment is insufficient to justify delay or denial of benefits. The decision reinforces that business records must be properly certified to support wage determinations and that carriers cannot rely solely on a positive drug test to avoid exposure under sections 19(k) and 16. For practitioners, Ramirez is a reminder that evidentiary shortcuts at arbitration can unravel an otherwise defensible case on review.
