Articles Posted in Consumer Law

by

Larry Fabian was hired in 2001 by Cantor Fitzgerald to be a broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. In 2007, he was transferred to BGC, which was a spinoff company of Cantor Fitzgerald.

In 2008, Fabian was named as a partner of “Founding Partner No. 69.” According to Fabian, he earned 100,393 “founding partner units” which could later be converted into common stock of the company.

On March 27, 2009, Fabian quit working for BGC to work for another securities firm. Shortly after leaving BGC, Fabian initiated arbitration before the Chicago Mercantile Exchange where he received $121,758 in commissions that he was owed from Cantor Fitzgerald. This did not include any reimbursement for his “founding partner units.”

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has reversed a summary judgment order that was entered by a Cook County judge in favor of Safeway Insurance Co. In this case, Jeffrey and Stephanie Hadary were injured in a car crash when Carlos Velez was driving a car he rented from Hertz Corp. The Hadarys claimed that they had suffered injuries that amounted to damages in excess of $40,000, which was the insurance limits of Velez’s insurance carrier, American Access Casualty Co., which had limits of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. The Hadarys reportedly declined to buy the “liability insurance supplement” when they rented the car from Hertz.

Under Illinois’ financial responsibility law, Hertz was bound to provide a bond, an insurance policy or certificate of self-insurance that promised to pay judgments against its customers and anyone driving a Hertz vehicle with a customer’s consent. Section 9-105 of the Illinois Vehicle Code required Hertz to provide this liability coverage with limits of (a) $50,000 for injury to one person or damage to property and (b) $100,000 for injuries to two or more persons.

After American Access paid its $40,000 policy limits to Hadarys, who paid $57 as a premium for underinsured motorist coverage from Safeway Insurance Co. with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence, they alleged that Velez was an underinsured motorist.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissing a lawsuit against a Wal-Mart store for injuries suffered by Kristen Zuppardi. She went to the Wal-Mart store in Champaign, Ill., with her brother and her son on June 15, 2010. When she entered the store, Ms. Zuppardi took a shopping cart from the front of the store and then walked down one of the main aisles of the store. Ms. Zuppardi was on her way to the back of the store to purchase milk. As she was walking down the aisle she slipped and fell in a puddle of water on the store’s concrete floors. She filed a complaint against Wal-Mart in state court in June 2012. The case was removed to the Federal District Court by Wal-Mart for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

One of the Wal-Mart store’s assistant managers, George Steward, stated that he did not witness the fall, but that he knew that because the fall occurred in close proximity to the store’s back doors, Wal-Mart personnel would have promptly dealt with the puddle even if the plaintiff had not fallen.

Wal-Mart was unable to locate the customer’s incident file of this occurrence and was accordingly incapable of producing any documents related to the investigation other than five photographs depicting the location of the fall and a report submitted to Wal-Mart’s casualty claims administrator. There was no video footage available.

Continue reading

by

On Aug. 2, 2005, Brandy Pirrello was a resident at Maryville Academy, a facility that houses and treats minors with behavioral problems. At the time, Brandy was 16 years old. She had been admitted to the facility in early 2005 and had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was at risk of suicide or self-harm. On Aug. 2, 2005, Brandy leaped from her second-story window, landed on a cement patio and seriously injured herself.

On July 17, 2007, Brandy turned 18 years old. The day before, she filed a lawsuit against Maryville. Brandy claimed that Maryville had been negligent in choosing not to take precautions against the risk that she would try to hurt herself. Brandy was seeking compensation for the expenses that she incurred due to her hospitalization and related medical expenses.

However, the injury and the bulk of the expenses incurred between the ages of 16 and 18 and as such, fell under Illinois Family Expense Act. By the terms of the act, the responsibility for paying for Brandy’s medical care was her parents’ responsibility rather than Brandy herself. Therefore, her parents had the right to sue. Brandy’s parents did not join her as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Brandy’s parents divorced when she was 8, and Brandy was on her father’s health insurance at the time of her injuries. Brandy’s father indicated at a deposition that he did not intend to be involved in her lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed the dismissal of a fraud case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Patrick Camasta filed a lawsuit against Joseph A. Bank Clothiers Inc. claiming that prior to making purchases at the company’s far north suburban store in Deer Park, Ill., that he saw an advertisement about “sale prices” for certain items.

Camasta’s complaint did not specify when or where he saw the advertisement, what exactly the advertisement said, what the “sale prices” were or what particular merchandise was eligible for the sale.

At the Deer Park Joseph A. Bank store, Camasta found that there was a promotion in which customers were able to buy one shirt and get two for free. Camasta purchased six shirts for $167. After his purchases, Camasta alleged that he learned that Bank’s practice was to advertise normal retail prices as normal price reductions. Camasta alleged but for this fraudulent retail tactic, he would not have purchased the six shirts.

Continue reading

by

A case against the automaker General Motors was first settled and then refiled after it was revealed that GM had chosen not to report the ignition switch defect to the public for more than 10 years. This was claimed to have been fraudulent concealment.

In this particular Georgia case, the parents of a 29-year-old woman, Brooke Melton, refiled a lawsuit against General Motors because new facts were revealed that related to the automaker’s knowledge that long predated the settlement. She was killed in a GM car in 2010 when the ignition switch on her Chevrolet Cobalt failed and caused the crash that tragically ended her life. General Motors and the family of Melton settled her wrongful-death action last year.

After the refiled lawsuit was put in place, GM moved to dismiss the case by motion. The Georgia judge presiding denied the motion. In fact, the presiding judge ordered that General Motors begin the discovery process by producing written materials and documents that had been requested by the Melton family attorneys. In addition, General Motors will be subject to written discovery by depositions to be taken of GM personnel as the case moves along.

Continue reading

by

A class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a window manufacturer. The basis for the reversal of the approved $90 million settlement for the class-action lawsuit claiming defective windows was due to inequities with respect to the attorney fees of approximately $11 million; meanwhile, the clients — the consumers — would get less than $8.5 million in total.

According to a section of the court’s opinion written by Justice Richard A. Posner, the “class counsel sold out the class.” The settlement was approved by the district court judge and has now been reversed.

The class-action lawsuit claimed that casement windows manufactured between 1991 and 2006 for Pella Corp.’s “Pro-Line Series” had a design defect.

Continue reading

by

Allen Plyler had purchased and installed a Whirlpool microwave oven for his home. Seven years later, in October 2006, Plyer used the microwave to heat up some food. Eight hours later, Plyer was awakened by a fire that began in the microwave. He tried to put out the fire but suffered physical and emotional injuries.

As a result of his injuries, Plyler filed a lawsuit against Whirlpool claiming strict product liability and negligent recall. At trial, the Whirlpool global product safety director testified about the defect in some microwaves that Whirlpool had recalled. The corporate product safety director testified that the microwave would catch fire only if it contained food splatters and was running immediately before the fire. Plyler testified at trial that the microwave was clean and wasn’t in use before the fire started.

The jury found in favor of Whirlpool on both the claim for strict product liability and negligent recall; Plyler moved for a new trial. The federal magistrate judge who considered the post-trial motion for a new trial concluded that a rational jury could have accepted the product safety director’s testimony, combined with Plyler’s testimony about the state of the microwave, and could conclude that Whirlpool was not responsible for Plyler’s injuries. The court also noted that the jury could have reasonably rejected Plyler’s argument that Whirlpool should have made additional efforts to notify him of the recall.

Continue reading

by

In February 2009, Valerie Mobley’s Subaru developed transmission problems. Mobley found Best Transmissions, which acted as a broker and referred auto repair jobs to various repair shops. Mobley called the number listed on the website that she found and spoke to a salesman who told her that a neighborhood shop would do the repair work and that no work would be done without a prior estimate and customer authorization. Mobley was told that no charges would be assessed unless she decided to go elsewhere for the work.

Mobley received an e-mail that contained an agreement for authorization for the work on her car. The agreement listed the price not involving “hard parts” as $1,397. The next day a tow truck came and took the Subaru without telling her where the vehicle was being taken.

Mobley called Best Transmissions again and an employee there gave her the number of the repair shop. The repair shop was called Tramco and was located nearly 30 miles from her home. When Mobley called Tramco she was directed back to Best Transmissions. Mobley was told that Best Transmissions was the customer of Tramco, not Mobley.

Continue reading

by

In November 2006, Jose Lopez lent Jesus Quintana $20,570.  The purpose of the loan was for Quintana to purchase a car.  There was no written agreement for the loan, just an oral contract. 

According to Lopez’s lawsuit, Quintana defaulted on the loan by choosing not to make his payments in November 2009.  Lopez filed a lawsuit to collect the balance of the loan.  Quintana responded by moving to dismiss.

Quintana raised the statute of frauds, seeking to bar Lopez’s suit because he wanted enforcement of an oral agreement that would not be completed within a year of the date agreed upon in violation of the statute of frauds.  The statute of frauds is a legal principle that requires certain contracts to be reduced to writing.

Continue reading