Appellate Court Finds Lack of Jury Trial Insufficient Reason to Set Aside Judgment Due to Untimely Challenge

On March 25, 2022, the Illinois First District Appellate Court issued its opinion in Casteel v. Jiminez, affirming the dismissal of a petition filed under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 to set aside a multimillion-dollar judgment. The court held that the petition was untimely and rejected the defendant’s argument that the judgment was void due to the absence of a jury trial on damages. Emphasizing that void judgments are limited to cases involving a lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, the court declined to recognize a new category of voidness and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

What’s in a Name? The Importance of Defining Your Client’s Role in Insurance Procurement Matters

In Austin Highlands Dev. Co. v. Midwest Ins. Agency, Inc., the Illinois Appellate Court examined whether a negligence claim was time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to insurance producers. The court held that, under Section 2-2201 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Illinois Supreme Court precedent, the term “insurance producer” includes both agents and brokers required to be licensed to sell, solicit, or negotiate insurance. Because Midwest qualified as an insurance producer, Austin’s claim accrued when it received the policy and was subject to the two-year limitations period, rendering the action untimely.

Excluding Evidence of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Filed against Experts Testifying in Medical Malpractice Cases

Are you considering retaining an expert in a medical malpractice case with a history of lawsuits against them? A recent Illinois appellate court ruling, Swift v. Schleicher, sheds light on the admissibility of such evidence at trial. The court emphasized that cross-examining experts about prior malpractice suits can be both irrelevant and prejudicial. This ruling raises critical questions about the risks of expert testimony and the standards of care in medical malpractice cases. Discover how this decision could impact your case and the implications for expert witnesses in the courtroom.

Self-Serving Pleadings for Additional Insureds

In Pekin Insurance Co. v. Johnson-Downs Construction, Inc., the Illinois Appellate Court clarified what pleadings may be considered when deciding whether to stay a coverage declaratory judgment action. The court held that a putative additional insured cannot rely on its own third-party complaint to create coverage, but an underlying plaintiff’s amended complaint may be considered if it is factually supported and not a transparent attempt to plead into coverage.

Developments in Judicial Estoppel following Seymour v. Collins

Judicial estoppel plays a crucial role in personal injury lawsuits, especially when plaintiffs fail to disclose their claims during bankruptcy proceedings. The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Seymour v. Collins raised the bar for invoking this doctrine, requiring proof of intent to deceive. However, a recent ruling in Barnes v. Lolling introduces a new defense strategy by challenging the standing of plaintiffs to sue for undisclosed assets. This evolving legal landscape highlights the importance of transparency in bankruptcy and the potential consequences of nondisclosure. Discover how these developments could impact your legal rights and obligations.

“Not Compensable” Does Not Always Mean “Not Covered”: Using Conflicts Law to Bar Civil Actions Arising From Injuries Subject to Another State’s Workers’ Compensation Statute

In a landmark ruling, the Illinois Appellate Court clarified that a plaintiff’s negligence action can proceed even if a workers’ compensation claim is “not compensable.” The case, Folta v. Ferro Engineering, highlights the complexities of workers’ compensation statutes and the potential for civil actions when traditional remedies are absent, impacting workplace injury claims.