Upcoming Seminars

News of Note

Speaking Engagements

SUCCESSFUL CLIENT RESULTS

Morris successfully represents Chicago Tribune in the
newspaper's first libel suit to go to trial in 40 years

Attorney H. Patrick Morris teamed with Houston attorneys from Jackson Walker to successfully represent the Chicago Tribune and its reporters in its first libel suit to go to trial in almost 40 years. The lawsuit stemmed from the shocking 1983 home invasion and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in Naperville, Illinois. The suit, brought by Former DuPage County prosecutor Thomas Knight against the Tribune, focused on three paragraphs in a 1999 story that described the upcoming trial in which he and six other DuPage County lawmen were accused of framing Rolando Cruz, Alex Hernandez and Steven Buckley for the murder of the Naperville girl.

Mr. Morris' victory was highlighted in the May 25 edition of The Voice, the Defense Research Institute's (DRI) electronic newsletter. To read the complete DRI article, click here. For further information, contact Mr. Morris at (312) 984-0244 or morrisp@jbltd.com.

Back to the top.

Pauletto obtains summary judgment for
insurance company on scaffold collapse case

Attorney Michael A. Pauletto recently obtained a summary judgment on behalf of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company in a very difficult and dangerous case in the Circuit Court of Peoria County.  The case arose from the collapse of a scaffold which had been suspended beneath Peoria's McCluggage Bridge for structural repairs.  The scaffold collapsed for reasons still in dispute, sending four workmen into the Illinois River.

The falling scaffold pinned three of the workmen underwater where they drowned before rescuers could reach them.  Another worker’s fall to the river was broken by being impaled on a five-foot section of one-inch thick upright piping.  He survived, but with massive injuries.  A fifth workman, who was thrown free of the collapsing scaffold, fell into the river, but escaped with relatively minor injuries.  A sixth person, who attempted to rescue the workmen, sustained multiple injuries including hypothermia in trying to rescue the three workmen trapped underwater.

Our insurance client was named as a direct defendant in each of the cases because, in addition to being the insurer for the general contractor/plaintiffs’ employer, was also acting under the terms of a Risk Control Service Agreement with the general contractor whereby our client, through its on-site safety specialist, agreed to assume responsibility for overall job site safety, including inspection and supervision of the use of all equipment and materials used on the site, including the scaffold.

Mr. Pauletto filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of our insurance client, based upon the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act that extend exclusive remedy protection to service organizations retained by the employer to provide safety services or to render safety advice or recommendations.  The court agreed with our position and granted summary judgment in favor of our insurance client, and against all six plaintiffs.  

For more information about this significant decision, contact Mr. Pauletto at (312) 984-0209 or paulettom@jbltd.com.  

Back to the top.

Johnson & Bell successfully defends real estate
appraisers in $2.3 million professional liability suit

Johnson & Bell Business Litigation & Practice Group Attorneys Joseph R. Marconi (left) and Victor J. Pioli (right) successfully defended three Cook County real estate appraisers in a professional liability suit brought by a prominent federal savings bank.   The suit alleged that the three appraisers had falsely and negligently appraised the value of a commercial office building located in Matteson , Illinois .  The bank claimed that the office building was worth only $700,000 while the appraisers had valued the building at $2.5 million.  The bank further claimed that it extended a $2.3 million loan in reliance upon the appraisal and the loan eventually defaulted.

After six days of trial before a jury and after the bank had presented its case, the appraisers moved the court for a directed verdict on the basis that the bank had failed to sustain its burden of proving its case.  The judge granted the appraisers’ motion and a verdict was entered in favor of the appraisers finding no liability.

Back to the top.

Johnson & Bell obtains dismissal of securities claim in Federal
Court on behalf of director of defendant corporation

On April 14, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs had alleged that the Defendants, a corporation and its directors, had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as well the securities laws of the states of Missouri, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maine.  These violations allegedly occurred as the result of the Defendants’ offer to sell convertible debentures and warrants to the Plaintiffs.

The Court first noted that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which governed the federal securities claims, or Rule 9(b), which governed the common law and various state securities law claims. Specifically, the Plaintiffs had continued to couch their claims of fraud in vague terms and had failed to identify the speaker of the alleged false statements, the statement made, and the reason why the statement was misleading.

Moreover, the Court held that the allegations where the Plaintiffs might have complied with the pleading requirements for either the PSLRA or Rule 9(b) were immaterial as a matter of law. Most of the statements were “either so vague and such obvious hyperbole that no reasonable investor would rely upon them or they were accompanied by sufficient cautionary statements.”

The cause has been dismissed with prejudice as the Plaintiffs had ample time to correctly plead their claims. If you have any questions about the issues in this case or similar issues you may contact Joe Marconi or Katy Hoying who handled this matter for our client.

Back to the top.

Judge reconsiders prior denial of summary judgment
motion in uninsured motorist claim for Fencl, Cryar --
saving insurance company client $1 million policy

Attorneys Glenn F. Fencl and Mary K. Cryar recently obtained a ruling granting their motion to reconsider a prior denial of a motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff filed an uninsured motorist claim against Johnson & Bell's insurance company client following a single truck accident.  He was operating a tractor owned by his immediate employer with a trailer attached owned by the insurance company's insured.  He lost control of the vehicle and struck a viaduct, allegedly due to an unknown vehicle cutting him off.  The collision resulted in the vehicle catching on fire, trapping the driver who sustained severe burns over 75% of his body.

The vehicle was being operated under the ICC permit of the insurance company's insured.  They were found to be the statutory employer and paid, after appeal, workers compensation benefits in excess of $1.5 million.   Plaintiff then made his uninsured motorist claim.  On cross motions for summary judgment, Fencl and Cryar argued that the vehicle he was operating was not an insured vehicle since it was not described in the policy.  The driver contended that he was an insured under the liability section of the policy and therefore Illinois law required the insurance company to provide him with uninsured motorist coverage.  The Court originally granted the plaintiff's motion and found coverage.  On the motion to reconsider, Fencl and Cryar convinced the court that the statutory provision contained an exception when the vehicle is not listed on the policy and is one furnished for the insured's regular use.  As a result, Fencl & Cryar saved their client their $1 million policy, although the plaintiff will file an appeal.

Fencl is chair of and Cryar an associate within Johnson & Bell's Insurance Coverage Group.  For more information on this ruling, please contact him at fenclg@jbltd.com or (312) 984-0688.

 Back to the top.