July 2019 Case Notes & Comments

"We are what we repeatedly do; excellence, then is not an act, but a habit." ~ Aristotle

MONTHLY QUIZ: Subcontractor's (Sub) Employee, who was injured attempting to retrieve rebar used for concrete installation, sues General Contractor (GC) for negligence. After discovery closes, GC moves for summary judgment, arguing it had neither actual nor constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition at the jobsite. Employee asserts the record contains substantial evidence that GC retained contractual control over the work of the Sub and negligently failed to exercise its control by allowing unsafe material storage at the jobsite. Specifically, Employee points out that GC had a project superintendent who inspected the jobsite daily, employed a safety auditor, had its own safety measures in place, a safety manual, ongoing training, and a safety supervisor monitoring safety at the worksite who was authorized to halt any subcontractor's unsafe work practices. In addition, the contract between GC and Sub required Sub to comply with GC's safety rules. Can GC be held liable even though it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the dangerous rebar? Did Employee provide sufficient evidence of a material disputed fact? Is GC entitled to summary judgment? You be the judge. (Answer below). 

LEF OBTAINS A NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR A CHICAGO BOUTIQUE HOTEL: Congratulations to Susan Chae Corcoran and Sara Spratt who prevailed on behalf of a Boutique Hotel after a four day jury trial in Cook County. Plaintiff, a 56 year old corporate executive, slipped in the hotel's shower in 2016. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the negligently designed shower caused a displaced, fractured clavicle.  He claimed continuing pain, disability, loss of normal life (avid golfer), and disfigurement. LEF's trial team convinced the jury that the shower was not unreasonably dangerous contrary to plaintiff's retained expert's opinions and further argued that plaintiff's injuries were not as severe as claimed by plaintiff's orthopedic surgeons and retained medical expert. Plaintiff's counsel asked for a verdict in excess of $590,000. Six of the jurors provided feedback to both the plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys explaining what evidence they found compelling. Case was tried February 19-22, 2019. Case No: 17 L 1333 (Cook). 

AUTO POLICY'S 'NONDUPLICATION' PROVISION ENTITLES INSURER TO APPLY SETOFFS TO UIM ARBITRATION AWARDS: Insured-Driver presented his underinsured motorist claims to Insurer for damages he sustained in two car accidents. The claims were submitted to arbitration and the arbitrators entered of total of $44,000 in awards in favor of Insured. When Insured sought confirmation of the $44,000 awards, a dispute arose regarding the application of setoff provisions in his auto policy (Policy). Insurer claimed that the Policy's "Nonduplication" provision, which permitted setoffs for amounts that "have already been paid," permitted a $40,000 set off, which was the total amount recovered from the underinsured motorists (i.e. bodily injury policy limits recovered from each). Insurer tendered the $4,000 and Insured rejected the money, contending he was entitled to the entire award and that allowing such setoffs violated Illinois' insurance statutes and public policy. The trial court held that Insurer was entitled to a setoff and Insured appealed. On review, the appellate court found the insurance statutes cited by Insured inapplicable. Moreover, given that the express provisions of the Policy allowed for such setoffs and placed Insured in the same position as he would have been, Insurer's Policy was found to have "adhere[d] to the well-established principles of [Illinois'] public policy" and to Illinois' "underinsured motorist statute." Gean v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2019 IL App (1st) 180935 (Jul. 25, 2019).

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DOES NOT APPLY TO SUB-CONTRACTORS NOTWITHSTANDING INSOLVENT GENERAL CONTRACTORS:  Condominium Association, on behalf of individual condominium owners, sued various entities including the general contractor and several sub-contractors involved in the construction of condominiums, alleging that the buildings contained various latent defects that resulted in water infiltration. Subcontractors moved to dismiss Plaintiff's count alleging implied warranty of habitability, arguing that there was no contractual privity.  In response, the plaintiff invoked the long-established "Minton Rule" from Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, 116 Ill.App.3d 852 (1st Dist. 1983), which permits implied warranty claims to proceed against subcontractors where the general contractor was legally insolvent. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court found that Minton was incorrectly decided in that it allowed a tort action against a subcontractor for economic loss where the builder-vendor had gone bankrupt, without properly addressing why the economic loss rule (i.e., Moorman Doctrine) would not apply. The Court then held that, without exception, "[t]he purchaser of a newly constructed home may not pursue a claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where there is no contractual relationship."  Sienna Court Condominium Ass'n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022 (December 28, 2018). 

INSURANCE COVERAGE - SILENCE AS TO NAMED INSURED'S NEGLIGENCE CANNOT BE BASIS FOR DENIAL OF A DUTY TO DEFEND ADDITIONAL INSURED: Contractor hired a Vendor, a company that provided elevators and escalators installation and modernization service. Vendor agreed to name Contractor as an additional insured under its commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy for liability arising out of Vendor's negligence. Vendor's Employee was injured on the job and named Contactor as a defendant in his lawsuit. Insurer refused to defend Contractor and filed a declaratory action as to Insurer's putative obligation to defend and indemnify Contractor as an additional insured under Vendor's policy. Insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that no defense was owed to Contractor because "there is not one word within the [underlying complaint] against [Contractor] that alleges any negligent act or omission by [Vendor]." The trial court ruled for Insurer, and Contractor appealed. On review, the appellate court reversed, finding that "the allegations in the underlying complaint must be read within the context of the Workers' Compensation Act, meaning that silence in an underlying complaint as to an employer's possible negligence must be understood as the possible result of tort immunity for employers." The appellate court held that the underlying complaint's silence as to Vendor's negligence cannot be grounds for Insurer's refusal to defend the additional insured Contractor. The decision has potential implications on insurers' duty to defend additional insureds under additional insured provisions which condition additional insured status on the negligence of the named insured, even where an underlying complaint may not specifically allege the named insured's negligence. Core Const. Servs. Of Ill., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2019 IL App (4th) 180411 (July 2, 2019). COMPARE: Pekin Insurance Co. v. Centex Homes, 2017 IL App (1st) 153601 ("[T]he allegations of the underlying complaint must be read with the understanding that the employer may be the negligent actor even where the complaint does not include allegations against that employer."). 

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Employee wins, GC loses. GC is not entitled to summary judgment. Illinois has adopted Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides that "[o]ne who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 (1965). There must be such a "retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way." In Illinois construction negligence cases, the trier of fact determines the extent of supervision of a contractor's control over a subcontractor's work. Here, in view of the evidence presented by Employee (e.g. GC's project superintendent's daily jobsite inspections, GC's in-place safety measures, GC's safety manual, ongoing training, GC's outside safety auditor, the contract between GC and Sub) gave rise to a material question of fact arose regarding the issue of compliance with GC's safety rules. Accordingly, summary judgment was inappropriate. John Foley v. Builtech Construction, Inc. 2019 IL App (1st) 180941 (Jul. 23, 2019). 

Past Publications


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