Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

On Aug. 6, 2011, the car driven by Mi Suk Park rear-ended Patricia LaBeck’s car on Rand Road in Deer Park, Ill. The great force of the crash caused the Park airbags to deploy, caused LaBeck’s sunglasses to come off and prompted LaBeck’s daughter’s shoes and headband to come off.

LaBeck was a 40-year-old homemaker at the time. She was taken by ambulance to Advocate Condell Medical Center in Libertyville, Ill., where she was diagnosed with a concussion and lumbar strain/sprain.

She returned to the emergency room two days after the crash for severe dizziness and headaches. She had feared that she had suffered a more severe head injury, but the concussion diagnosis was confirmed.

Continue reading

by

A lawsuit was filed against the Chicago Zoological Society, which operates Brookfield Zoo, on land owned by the Cook County Forest Preserve District. The case was filed by Kristine O’Toole for injuries that she suffered when she fell because of an alleged defect in the pavement.

The defendant, the Chicago Zoological Society, which is a not-for-profit corporation, moved to dismiss the lawsuit under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, which includes a shortened statute of limitations — that being one-year rather than two years for the usual tort claim. The shortened one-year deadline applies to “any not-for-profit corporation organized for the purpose of conducting public business.”

The Cook County judge granted the motion dismissing O’Toole’s case because she had not filed the lawsuit within the one-year statute of limitations from the date of her injury that the judge decided applied. She took an appeal claiming that the defendant did not qualify as a “local public entity” that would impose the one-year statute.

Continue reading

by

An industrial design firm, nClosures, produced metal cases for tablet computers, such as the iPad. Ian LeBlanc designed a case for nClosures in early 2011 called the Rhino Elite. In May 2011, the co-founders of nClosures attended a tradeshow in Chicago to showcase the Rhino Elite prototypes.

At the tradeshow, the co-founders Daniel Gorman and Daniel McKean met with Greg Carlson, CEO of Block and Co. Block manufactured metal cash drawers but was interested in entering into the tablet enclosure market. Carlson approached Gorman and McKean about a possible relationship. At a May 24, 2011 meeting, the two companies signed a confidentiality agreement regarding the potential deal between them.

After signing the agreement, nClosures gave Block the design files for the Rhino products. The parties then attempted to negotiate a written contract concerning the manufacture and sale of the tablet enclosures.

Continue reading

by

In a case that involved thousands of toxic tort liability cases, the Illinois Appellate Court has ruled that an industrial manufacturer must turn over documents it alleged were privileged to a company indemnifying it.

In March 1999, automotive systems manufacturer BorgWarner Inc. acquired Kuhlman Corp. and its subsidiaries, including Kuhlman Electric Corp (KEC).

Since the 1950s, KEC has operated a facility in Mississippi that produces electrical transformers. As part of the Kuhlman Corp. sale, KEC represented that there was no soil contamination on its Mississippi property.

Continue reading

by

On Nov. 25, 2008, Thomas J. Hagerman was driving westbound on Route 6 in Morris, Ill., when the defendant, Betty Leake, who was attempting to make a left turn onto Lisbon Street, chose not to yield the right-of-way. Instead, Leake turned directly in front of Hagerman’s truck, causing Hagerman to T-bone her vehicle.

Hagerman was 43 years old at the time and suffered injuries to his cervical and thoracic spine, which resulted in a three-level cervical discectomy and fusion surgeries. He lost one year of work as a security guard and warehouse worker.

Hagerman was able to return to his job, but later underwent two bilateral knee replacements unrelated to the crash. He has not been able to work since the knee replacement surgeries.

Continue reading

by

In a commodities fraud case, it was contended by the plaintiff, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), that previous versions of a defendant expert’s report should be produced and not be privileged because of communications between the lawyer and this expert witness.

In 2010, the work-product privilege provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) was extended to cover drafts of reports from experts with three exceptions. This privilege extends to communications between lawyers and experts.

The CFTC argued that the defendants “should be deemed to have forfeited Rule 26(b)(4)’s work-product protection because there is evidence that defendants’ counsel participated in drafting sections of the report.” The U.S. magistrate judge handling this U.S. District Court case rejected the CFTC’s forfeiture argument stating: “The CFTC’s approach would require an analysis of the degree of counsel involvement (both quantity and quality) in the drafting of the report. Such an analysis would necessarily require production of all of the drafts of the report for comparison, as well as production of all, or virtually all, communications between expert and counsel. The drafters intended Rule 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) to protect against that discovery.”

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has reversed the decision of a U.S. District Court judge wherein an agreement between the parties, Hennessy Industries Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, required arbitration of any dispute that mandated an interpretation of the agreement. In this case, Hennessy Industries manufactured car parts. Since the 1980s, Hennessy has been the named defendant in many lawsuits for asbestos-related personal-injury cases. Hennessy has been looking to National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh for insurance coverage for these claims. The two companies entered into a cost-sharing agreement in 2008.

When the lawsuits for asbestos-related injuries started coming in, Hennessy requested that National Union indemnify it for settlement and defense costs as provided for in their agreement. The two parties, however, could not come to an agreement as to what was owed. Hennessy demanded arbitration in line with the agreement, which provided for arbitration of disputes between the parties.

Hennessy filed suit in 2013 under 215 ILCS 5/155(1), maintaining that National Union’s delays in granting coverage of the asbestos claims had been vexatious and unreasonable.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Business Corporation Act, Section 7.75, gives shareholders the right to inspect a company’s records, “but only for a proper purpose.” The Illinois Business Corporation Act was amended in 1984, requiring shareholders to make their demand in writing, “stating with particularity the records sought to be examined and the purpose therefore.” 805 ILCS 5/7.75.

The plaintiffs in this case, Sunlitz Holding Co. (and three of the company’s shareholders) appealed from an order that dismissed its complaint for mandamus against Trading Block Holdings Inc., which claimed that it had satisfied the “proper purpose” and “particularity” requirements.

The lawsuit complaint contained exhibits attaching two letters the plaintiff sent to Trading Block. In an April 1, 2013 letter, plaintiff Sunliz said it wanted to inspect the corporation’s records “to determine the financial condition of the company, the character of the management of the company and whether the company’s financial practices were appropriate.” In another letter dated May 17, 2013, the plaintiff said he was worried that the corporation was being used “as a piggy bank for the insiders and the board of directors.”

Continue reading

by

The general rule in Illinois, under Section 2-610(b) of the Illinois Civil Procedure, “every allegation, except allegations of damages, not explicitly denied is admitted.” In this case, the defendant chose not to file an answer before the start of the trial. The question for the appellate court was: “Are the allegations in the complaint automatically considered as having been admitted based on Section 2-610(b)?” The answer to the question by the Illinois Appellate Court for the 5th District was, “No.” The appellate court concluded that “Section 2-610 of the Code is inapplicable in a situation where there has been no answer filed.”

In this case, Crawford County Oil and LaCross Inc. sued Floyd Weger, Michael Worthy, Paula Worthy and Charlene Cornwell in a downstate Illinois municipality 243 miles south of Chicago. First, the defendants moved to dismiss. When that motion was denied, the defendants requested summary judgment.

The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 181(a) says that when a defendant responds to a complaint by filing a motion and the request is denied; “an answer or another appropriate motion shall be filed within the time the court directs in the order disposing of the motion.”

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