December 2017 Case Notes & Comments

From all of us at LEF, we hope this holiday season brings happiness to you, your family and friends.

MONTHLY QUIZ:  On December 26, 2016, Santa, exhausted from delivering toys, rear-ended Ebenezer Scrooge's carriage in stop-and-go traffic. The collision causes Scrooge's carriage to hit Abominable Snowman's snowmobile, which is stopped in front of Scrooge's carriage. Scrooge claims that the collision caused him to jerk forward and hit his knees on the dash. Scrooge is immediately taken to the hospital, complaining that his neck, back and arm pain are a 9 out of 10 on the pain scale. Scrooge sues Santa and presents almost $30,000 in medical bills to the jury, most of which relate to his back. While Santa admits that his sleigh negligently collided with Scrooge's carriage, Santa contends that the collision was low-impact, did not proximately cause injuries and disputes the amount of the bills. Santa's attorney, Buddy the Elf, presents a competing medical history, documenting that Scrooge made similar complaints beginning in 2010, demonstrates that between 2011 and 2015 Scrooge made similar medical complaints which Scrooge's doctors described as "chronic", and reveals that Scrooge had called his doctor hours before the December 26, 2016 collision, complaining of arm pain. The jury finds in favor of Scrooge, awards $1,000 for reasonable medical care and treatment, but  awards no non-economic damages (e.g. pain and suffering). "Bah humbug!" decries Scrooge, claiming that the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence and seeks a new trial. Will this jury verdict stand? Under these facts, is Scrooge entitled to a new trial? You be the judge (Answer below).  

LEF SAVES INSURER MILLIONS IN POLICY DISPUTE: Thomas J. Finn and Scott Wing successfully defended an insurer in a first-party property loss eight-day jury trial, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The Plaintiff-insured sustained a property loss caused by a third party's negligent sand-blasting in a building that housed the insured's architectural and design offices, studio and storage space. After the insurer paid full replacement cost business personal property limits of approximately $1.2 million and approximately $500,000 for twelve months of business income loss, Plaintiff-insured sought approximately $4.8 million in extra expense and additional business income loss. The plaintiff claimed that the insurer's delayed claim handling estopped the insurer from asserting the policy's 12-month extra expense and business income limitations and that plaintiff's approximate $2 million in expenses allegedly spent to equip and operate a new studio were necessary expenses incurred to avoid or minimize the suspension of plaintiff's business. After the insurer's $1.2 million offer to settle the claim was rejected by the plaintiff, the case was tried. The jury rejected the bulk of the plaintiff's claims and awarded plaintiff $1.3 million in damages.  The case was tried before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzmán.  Jordan Mozer & Assocs. v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., Case No. 14 CV 10264, (N.D. Ill., Chicago, October 24, 2017 through November 2, 2017). 

CLARIFICATION OF WHEN ILLINOIS MEDICAL STUDIES ACT PROTECTS DOCUMENTS: Plaintiff filed a wrongful-death and survival action against Defendant Hospital and medical providers following the death of her premature newborn child.  Shortly after the child's death, Plaintiff contacted the hospital to express concerns regarding the treatment rendered to her and her child.  Pursuant to the hospital's peer-review policy and medical staff quality committee (MSQC) charter, these concerns and the death were "review indicators", which prompted the MSQC's liason to meet with Plaintiff as well as two physicians who reviewed the obstetrical and neonatal treatment rendered.  A week later, the MSQC met to discuss the plaintiff's concerns and medical treatment, and relied upon the notes created by the MSQC liason.  During discovery, Defendant Hospital withheld the notes of the MSQC liason reflecting the reviewing physicians' conclusions pursuant to a claim of privilege under the Medical Studies Act (735 ILCS 5/8-2101 et seq.).  Following an in camera review, the trial court ordered the documents to be produced, on the basis that the documents were produced prior to the MSQC meeting, and were not made pursuant to an investigation requested by the MSQC.  The Second District Appellate Court affirmed, re-emphasizing that the Medical Studies Act cannot be used to conceal evidence created before a quality-assurance committee or its designee authorized an investigation into a specific incident, even when the investigation was initiated by medical staff pursuant to the hospital's internal quality control or peer-review policies.  The Court held that in order for a party to successfully assert a claim of privilege over documents pursuant to the Medical Studies Act, two things must be true: (1) the documents must be made after an internal peer-review committee is assembled to investigate a patient's medical treatment; and (2) the documents must be initiated, created, prepared, or generated by a peer-review committee.  Grosshuesch v. Edward Hospital, et al., 2107 IL App (2d) 160972 (September 5, 2017).

INSURANCE COVERAGE - DUTY TO DEFEND: Subcontractor's Employee is injured on the job site and sues General Contractor for negligence, but makes no allegations about the acts of his employer, the Subcontractor. GC tenders the case to Subcontractor's Insurer, citing GC's status as an additional insured on the liability policy that Insurer issued to Subcontractor. Insurer rejects GC's tender because the policy excludes "liability arising out of the sole negligence of the additional insured." GC files a third-party complaint against Subcontractor, alleging that it negligently contributed to its Employee's injury.  Insurer files a complaint for declaratory judgment, requesting a ruling that it has no duty to defend GC in the underlying case. The court holds that it cannot consider the allegations of the third-party complaint in determining whether Insurer had a duty to defend GC, and that the exclusion applied because Employee's Complaint did not contain any allegation that Subcontractor acted negligently.  The appellate court recently reversed the lower court's decision, holding, as a preliminary matter, that the insurer bears the burden of proof in establishing that an exclusion bars coverage. While Employee's Complaint did not allege negligence on the part of Subcontractor, the Employee did not expect to recover damages from Subcontractor, and therefore had no reason to include allegations against Subcontractor. Therefore, the Complaint's silence about Subcontractor's conduct did not satisfy Insurer's burden of proof of showing the Subcontractor's acts or omissions did not contribute to Employee's injury, and that GC's liability in the underlying case arose out of its "sole negligence." Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blinderman Construction Co. and the Estate of Robert Woods, 2017 IL App (1st) 162234 (Oct. 24, 2017).

ANSWER TO QUIZ:  Scrooge loses, Santa wins! In Illinois, a verdict is only against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite result is clearly evident or where the jury's findings are unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence. On review, the appellate court found that, in view of the competing medical evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that not all of the treatment Scrooge received was reasonable and necessary, proximately caused by the collision and that Scrooge was not entitled to compensation for the full amount of the services for which he was billed.  Furthermore, the jury heard evidence from which it could conclude that Scrooge lacked credibility (e.g. history of  chronic neck, back and shoulder pain). Under these circumstances, Scrooge is not entitled to a new trial. DiFranco v. Kusar, 2017 IL App (1st) 160533-U (Oct. 24, 2017).

Past Publications


June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
January 2024


December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023


December 2022
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022


December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021


December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020


December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019


December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018


December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017


December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016


December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015


December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014


December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013


December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012


December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011


December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010


December 2009