Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Illinois Probate Law Allows Executors to Set Multiple Deadlines for Claims Against Estates, Appeals Court Decides

July 13, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A legal malpractice plaintiff who is also the executor of an estate may issue new creditor notices to avoid having his case dismissed, the First District Court of Appeal decided March 31. In Jaason v. Sullivan, No. 1-08-1254 (Ill. 1st Dist. March 31, 2009), the executor, Erik Jaason, filed a Chicago legal malpractice lawsuit against Barbara J. Sullivan and B.J. Sullivan & Associates for alleged mistakes in a will Sullivan prepared for Alexander Koepp.

In his complaint, Jaason alleges that Koepp instructed Sullivan to prepare a will giving Jaason the right to purchase Koepp’s home for $150,000, at Jaason’s discretion. However, Koepp’s home was already held in joint tenancy with his wife, Karsti Koepp. Thus, upon Alexander Koepp’s death in November of 2006, the property was outside the purview of the will and passed to Karsti Koepp under the joint tenancy, leaving Jaason with no option to purchase it. He sued Sullivan in December of 2007 for legal malpractice, alleging that her failure to recognize and take action on the joint tenancy fell outside the applicable standard of care.

In response, Sullivan filed a motion to dismiss the suit as time-barred. The Illinois Code of Civil Procedure requires that, in cases where probate has been opened, plaintiffs must file their claims for legal malpractice within the time given for claims against the estate or the time given for contesting the validity of a will — whichever is greater. The six-month window for contesting the will had clearly elapsed in the 13 months since Koepp’s death. To make a claim against an estate, creditors in Illinois have three months from the date they receive a notice of the death in the mail, or six months from the date of publication of the death as a legal notice, whichever is later.

Incorrect Breakdown of Principal and Interest Does Not Violate FDCPA Requirement for ‘Truthful Information,’ Seventh Circuit Rules

July 8, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a bill collector’s failure to correctly break down a bill into principal and interest does not violate that Act. Wahl v. Midland Credit Management, No. 08-1517 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2009) was a class action lawsuit alleging that debt collectors violate the FDCPA when they send out bills that state the correct total amount but break down the charges incorrectly.

Plaintiff Barbara Wahl had just $66.98 on a credit card when she sustained a stroke and racked up much larger medical bills during a time when she couldn’t work. The credit card went unpaid and eventually, the balance was $1,149.09, mostly in interest and late fees. Midland purchased the debt in January of 2005 and started sending demand letters to Wahl. The letter at issue arrived April 15, 2005, listing both the “current balance” and “amount due” at $1,160.57. On the back side, it listed the “principal” as $1,149.09 and the “accrued interest” as $11.48. This was followed by a similar letter listing a higher interest. The letters construed the “principal” as the total value of the debt Midland had bought, including interest accrued with the original creditor.

Wahl filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. One of her two claims was that Midland had violated the FDCPA by incorrectly stating that the principal on her account was $1,149.09 rather than breaking down the original principal, the original interest and the new interest. Debt collectors are not required by law to break down charges, it said — but when they do, the law requires that the breakdown not contain false or misleading information. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of Midland. Wahl appealed.

First District Rules Insurer Must Defend Private Security Company in Chicago Fire Damage Lawsuits Despite ‘Joint Venture’

June 29, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A private security company’s agreement with a competitor does not foreclose insurance coverage in lawsuits filed against the first company alone, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Clarendon America Insurance Company v. B.G.K. Security Services, Inc., No. 1-07-2994 (Ill. 1st Dec. 19, 2008), arises out of a 2003 fire at a Cook County-owned building at 69 West Washington Street in Chicago. Twenty-two lawsuits resulted from the fire. Clarendon, which insures BGK, had filed for declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend BGK in those suits.

Clarendon’s argument focuses on language in its policy, specifying that the insured parties include “[a]ny organization you newly acquire or form, other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company…” It used that language to argue that coverage for BGK in the 22 fire lawsuits should be excluded, because BGK had entered into a joint venture with another security company, Aargus Security Systems, Inc. Both sides filed for summary judgment in the trial court, and the trial court sided with BGK. Clarendon appealed, arguing both the summary judgment language and that it should have been allowed to complete discovery because the record was unclear.

By contrast, BGK argued that Clarendon has a duty to defend because the lawsuits name BGK rather than the joint venture, and BGK is also the insured named by the insurance policy. The appeals court agreed. Pointing out that the joint venture is extrinsic evidence, the court reasoned that this evidence involves facts that could drastically change the underlying litigation (the fire lawsuits) by affecting BGK’s liability. That would make it an impermissible consideration under Illinois caselaw, the court wrote, and thus, the trial court was right to exclude it.

Appeals Court Dismisses Chiropractor’s Class Action Lawsuit Against Insurer for Alleged Underpayment and Breach of Contract

June 22, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In a proposed class-action insurance fraud lawsuit, the Illinois Third District Court of Appeal has ruled that a chiropractor may not sue a workers’ compensation insurer. In Martis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company, No. 3-08-0004 (Ill. 3rd March 27, 2009), chiropractor Richard Martis sued Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company after Grinnell’s billing employees incorrectly paid Martis too little for treating an injured worker.

In February of 2006, Martis began treating an employee of Water Management Corp. of Illinois who had been injured on the job. He was to be paid by Water Management’s workers’ compensation policy, issued by Grinnell. When he submitted his bills to Grinnell, the insurer’s outside billing firm applied PPO discounts to those bills even though Martis did not have a PPO agreement with Grinnell. Thus, Grinnell underpaid Martis. He responded with a proposed class-action lawsuit encompassing all Illinois health care providers who had been underpaid by Grinnell in the same way, through incorrect PPO discounts.

The complaint by Martis alleged conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The trial court granted Grinnell’s motion to dismiss the conspiracy and unjust enrichment counts. However, it certified the class of health-care providers as to the breach of contract claim. Grinnell appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and the class certification to the Third District.

Best Websites to Learn About Consumer Law Issues — Our DuPage, Lake, and Cook County, and Chicago Illinois Consumer Lawyers Can Assist You in Illinois Debt Collector Abuse Lawsuits

June 21, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

As Illinois consumer attorneys we were pleased to see that the Illinois Attorney General has a very informative website highlighting the protections provided by Illinois and Federal Law against abusive debt collection practices. You can link to the website here.

The Attorney General’s website describes how the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Illinois Collection Agency Act and the Illinois Consumer and Deceptive Business Practices Act can protect Illinois residents from debt collector abuse:

If you use credit cards, owe money on a loan or are paying off a home mortgage, you are a “debtor.” If you fall behind on your payments to these creditors, you may be contacted by a debt collector. You should know that the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Illinois Collection Agency Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act all provide protections guaranteeing that debt collectors treat you fairly. These laws do not, however, forgive any legitimate debt you owe. Personal, family and household debts are covered under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act. This includes money owed for medical care, charge accounts or car purchases.

New FTC Question and Answer Brochure on the Federal Debt Collector Abuse Law — Know Your Rights — Our Chicago, Naperville, Wheaton and Waukegan Attorneys Can File Suit to Stop Abusive Debt Collectors

June 18, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A very informative brochure just published by the Federal Trade Commission contains the following very useful questions and answers regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

What debts are covered?

Personal, family, and household debts are covered under the Act. This includes money owed for the purchase of an automobile, for medical care, or for charge accounts.

Video Describing 4 Common Types of Consumer Fraud — Our Chicago Attorneys Handle Many Types of Individual and Class Action Consumer Fraud Lawsuits

June 18, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago, Wheaton, Naperville and Waukegan, Illinois consumer fraud attorneys found the below video on 4 common types of consumer fraud to be informative.

Based in Chicago, Wilmette and Oak Brook, Ill., DiTommaso Lubin handles informercial, stock broker, auto dealer and RV dealer fraud and other consumer fraud litigation for clients in Wheaton, Naperville,Waukegan, Evanston, Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Lisle and in other parts of Illinois, the Midwest and throughout the United States. In addition to helping individuals and families, our Chicago class action attorneys have successfully handled numerous consumer rights class actions. If you believe you’re a victim of fraud and misrepresentations or a deceptive business practice, please contact us as soon as possible to learn about your rights at a free consultation.

New Report by National Consumer Law Center on Auto Dealers Taking Advantage of Working Families — Naperville, Oak Brook, Wheaton and Chicago Lemon Law Attorneys Who Fight to Protect Working Families

June 18, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

As Chicago Wheaton and Illinois autofraud and lemon law attorneys we took note of a report released earlier this year by the National Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”) concludes that:

Buying a reliable, quality used car for a fair price is nearly impossible for America’s working families who often fall victim to unfair financing ploys, deceptive sales practices, exorbitant fees, and fraud.

A summary of the report is posted here.

Company Must Have Trial on Whether It Breached Golden Parachute Contract With Termination of CEO, Appeals Court Rules

June 17, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In a breach of contract and Illinois Wage Payment Act case, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a company and its former executive must have a trial to determine whether it breached the executive’s employment contract. Covinsky v. Hannah Marine Corporation, No. 1-08-0695 (Ill. 1st. Feb. 17, 2009). At issue in the case is a severance clause in Jeffrey Covinsky’s employment contract with Hannah Marine Corp., for which he served as president, CEO and CFO from 1998 to 2006.

Covinsky’s contract specified that he was entitled to a “golden parachute” of 18 months’ salary if there is “…a change in the present ownership which results in the termination of the Employee’s employment…” This agreement was executed in 2004, when Hannah Marine was jointly owned by three people, including Donald Hannah. Hannah sued the other shareholders in 2005 for financial mismanagement, and ended up buying out the other two shareholders. Covinsky told Hannah in 2005 that he assumed Hannah would want to let him go after the change; in 2006, Covinsky told Hannah he did not intend to resign and wanted to finish the contract, which was set to expire in 2006.

A month later, when the takeover was final, Hannah told Covinsky that he was terminated and that Hannah “accepted” Covinsky’s resignation. Covinsky protested that he never resigned, but was not paid the severance. He sued Hannah Marine and Donald Hannah for breach of the employment contract and violating the Illinois Wage Payment Act. Hannah countersued Covinsky for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment to Covinsky on both counts as to Hannah Marine, but dismissed the Wage Act claim against Hannah personally. It also dismissed the company’s counterclaim. Both sides appealed, resulting in the consolidated instant appeal.

Homeowners May Bring Derivative Claim Against Association’s Board of Directors, Appeals Court Rules

June 7, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A group of Chicago condo owners may proceed with a derivative lawsuit against their homeowners’ association’s Board of Directors, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. In Davis v. Dyson, No. 1-07-2927 (Ill. 1st Dec. 19, 2008), twelve condo owners sued individuals formerly on the board of directors after the board members failed to detect embezzlement by an outside property manager. Furthermore, the homeowners alleged, the former board members failed to get enough insurance or get an attorney’s advice on their duty to do so, resulting in losses and out-of-pocket costs of more than $800,000 after the embezzlement was detected.

The homeowner plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duty under two counts — one derivative claim on behalf of the association and one claim as individual homeowners whose property values were allegedly harmed by the directors’ inaction. In response, board members argued that the homeowners lacked standing to sue in both claims — for the individual claim, because the property value claim did not constitute a separate and distinct harm to the individual homeowners. For the derivative claim, the board members argued that only the board itself may bring a derivative action against third parties. The trial court agreed and dismissed both claims; the homeowners appealed.

In its analysis, the appeals court pointed out that shareholders have an undisputed right to sue their own boards of directors; the question was whether they may file a derivative claim against third parties (in this case, the former directors). The court concluded that they could, pointing out that the right to file a derivative suit puts homeowners into the association’s shoes. This means that they are acting on behalf of the association, the opinion said, not usurping its undisputed right to sue third parties. The relevant section of the Illinois Condominium Property Act does not prevent derivative claims by homeowners, the court wrote, so it saw no reason to deviate from caselaw on derivative actions.