Chicago Injury Lawyer Blog

The time after a car accident can be stressful and frightening. Painful injuries and worries about keeping up with work and family are the biggest concerns. You may be in no position to speak to anyone - let alone the insurance adjuster for the at-fault driver. But the insurance company will often contact you and ask you to settle your claim quickly, often for a figure that is far less than it is worth. If you have been hit by a car while riding your bike or as a pedestrian, you can expect a call from the insurance company. My advice: Never speak to them without a lawyer.

No matter what the adjuster tells you, the at-fault driver's insurance company does not have your interests in mind. In fact, the adjuster has a conflict of interest in saying anything to you about the value of your claim. It is important NOT to speak with the at-fault driver's insurance company without counsel. Any competent attorney knows that a call to the insurance company is likely to be recorded; therefore, it is not in your interest to say anything at all. It is best to leave all communication to your counsel.

Continue reading "Illinois Car Accidents: Why NOT to Speak to the Insurance Company" »

As winter approaches, snow, ice, and water are going to become hazards for pedestrians who can injure their neck and back. In Illinois, a slip & fall accident is an actionable claim against the property owner or manager depending on how the snow, ice, or water accumulated. If an accumulation occurs naturally and without aggravation by the property owner, Illinois courts have held that a property owner generally owes no duty to remove the accumulation, regardless of how long the accumulation has been present. Despite this, Illinois courts have also found that business owners have a duty to provide a reasonably safe means in ingress and egress. Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 394 Ill.App.3d 39 (1st Dist. 2009).

Once a property owner undertakes to clear snow or ice from the premises, the property owner assumes a duty to do so non-negligently. One such scenario is when a property owner has shoveled snow into a pile, which later melts and then refreezes, creating a hazard. If a parking lot has a sloped grade, and the snow is removed to the higher part of the parking lot, melting snow that drains back across the parking lot may result in an unnatural accumulation. Unnatural accumulations can also form from gutters or a leaking roof which drain melting snow onto a parking lot only to refreeze there.

Continue reading "Slip & Fall Claims: Unnatural Accumulation of Snow and Ice in Illinois" »

The common fund doctrine serves to limit an insurance company's recovery of insurance liens from a Plaintiff's settlement. The common fund doctrine is an exception to the American rule on attorney's fees. Typically, each party is responsible for their own attorney's fees unless there is a statute or an agreement between the parties to the contrary. However, the common fund doctrine allows an attorney to collect a reasonable fee from a fund created through the attorney's efforts. The rationale is to prevent the unjust enrichment of other parties, such as an insurance company, through the lawyer's hard work, without paying their fair share.

Commonly, this doctrine is applied in cases involving car accidents, pedestrian accidents, and bicycle accidents in which the plaintiff's insurance company has paid for medical expenses for the plaintiff's injuries and is seeking repayment from the at-fault defendant's insurance company. For the common fund doctrine to apply, the attorney must create the fund through legal services, the subrogee or claimant must not have participated in bringing about the creation of the fund, and the subrogee received a benefit from the common fund. However, the doctrine will not apply when the subrogee expresses a prompt, clear, and unequivocal desire to pursue its own subrogation claim against the defendant's insurance company.

Continue reading "Insurance Subrogation Liens: The Common Fund Doctrine in Illinois" »

The Illinois Supreme Court recently clarified social host liability in Illinois in the decision of Bell v. Hutsell. The case explains how personal injury or negligence claims can arise in social host situations. These claims may include car accidents. Generally, a social host of a party where alcohol is served is not liable for injuries caused by persons who consume alcohol and thereafter cause injuries to third persons. However, under a voluntary undertaking theory, if a social host undertakes an act, then they may be civilly liable if they perform that act negligently. As an example, a parent who allows their minor child to have a party at their residence and undertakes to prevent minors from consuming alcohol, such as confiscating liquor, may be liable if an intoxicated person subsequently injures a third person.

In the case of Bell v. Hutsell, Daniel Bell, an 18-year-old, attended a party hosted by the Defendants' son, Jonathon, and allegedly consumed alcohol at said party. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the Hutsells were aware of underage consumption at the house, that their son, Jonathon, had previously pled guilty to underage consumption, that underagers drank excessive amounts of alcohol within the presence of the Hutsells without any objection, and that Jerry Hutsell had spoke to a number of underage parties who had been drinking alcohol and requested that if they had drank, then not to drive. The Complaint further alleged that after consuming alcohol at the Hutsell residence Daniel Bell died in a single-car accident when his vehicle collided with a tree.

Continue reading "Illinois Social Host Liability in the Wake of Bell v. Hutsell" »