February 2011 Case Notes & Comments

“Knowledge is power, community is strength
and positive attitude is everything.” ~ Lance Armstrong

MONTHLY QUIZ: Defendant-Adult Son lives at his mother’s home, but holds no ownership interest in the house or property. Plaintiff came over to visit Defendant and is injured playing the ‘popcorn’ game on trampoline, when she ‘bottoms out’ and hits the ground. Plaintiff claims that Defendant knew the trampoline springs were loose and that the trampoline would not hold the weight of several adults playing ‘popcorn.’ Does Defendant have a duty to warn of such conditions if he knows about them? Who wins? You be the judge. (Answer below).


INSURANCE LAW - BUSINESS INCOME LOSS LIMITED TO PERIOD OF RESTORATION: Insured suffered flood damage to equipment. Though equipment was restored within three months, operations did not resume for more than a year. Insured filed a business interruption claim. The policy covered loss of business income for “necessary suspension” of operations during the “period of restoration,” limiting coverage to income lost for twelve months after the date of loss. Insured claimed business income loss for the entire twelve month period. The Court disagreed, finding provision only covered income lost during the “period of restoration” (three months), which period was limited to less than twelve months. Cimco Communications, Inc. v. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, --N.E.2d--, 2011 WL 488746 (1st Dist. Feb. 08, 2011)

 

ARBITRATION/ENFORCEABILITY OF ARBITRATION PROVISION: Plaintiff purchased computer from Defendant-Manufacturer and later sued, alleging Defendant misrepresented computer’s processing speed. Defendant sought to dismiss suit and compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement. Trial court denied the motion. While on appeal, the arbitrator designated in agreement stopped accepting consumer arbitrations. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal on the basis that the arbitration agreement failed, due to unavailability of the arbitral forum. On review, the Illinois Supreme Court found the arbitral forum “integral to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.” The high court held that the arbitration agreement failed, in part, due to the fact that the arbitral forum was unavailable. Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §5(2006)) also discussed. Carr v. Gateway, Inc.,--N.E.2d--, 2011 WL 329115 (Feb. 3, 2011)

 

INSURANCE LAW - NOTICE TO MEMBER COMPANY NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE: Worker injured by product sued Insured. Insurer No. 1 agreed to defend and Plaintiff (Insurer No. 2) agreed to provide excess coverage. Defendant (Insurer No. 3) refused to participate, claiming no coverage, citing notice provision which required Insured to give company notice “in writing, sent by registered or certified mail.” Insurer No. 3 and Insurer No. 1 were both AIG-member companies. The day of the accident, Insured phoned Broker but did not provide any written notification. In turn, Broker faxed AIG claims department an Accord that only referenced Insurer No. 1 and left “umbrella/excess” section blank. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that Defendant had sufficient notice since Insurer No. 3 and Insurer No. 1 were both AIG member companies. The appellate court disagreed, reasoning that merely because the insurance companies “belonged to the same organization … [does] not impute notice.” Federal Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co.,--N.E.2d--, 2011 WL 31860 (1st Dist. Jan.03, 2011)

 

NEGLIGENCE / CONSTRUCTION LAW – VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING REQUIRES PHYSICAL INJURY: Plaintiff-Concrete Subcontractor hired by one of UIC’s contractors to pour concrete at University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) campus. Defendant-Testing Lab was hired by UIC to test concrete. Though Defendant allegedly inspected and tested the concrete on several occasions, Plaintiff forced to remove and replace non-conforming concrete. Plaintiff sued for monetary losses, alleging that Defendant’s negligent misrepresentations and negligent testing caused it not to discover the bad concrete. In IL, negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims both require a duty owed by one party to another. The IL Supreme Court found that since Defendant had no direct or indirect contractual relationship with Plaintiff, Defendant owed no contractual duty. Plaintiff also argued that Defendant voluntarily undertook a duty when it inspected and tested the concrete. In IL, the ‘voluntary undertaking’ doctrine provides that one who voluntarily renders services to another may, under certain circumstances, be liable for ‘physical harm’ resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care. According to the IL Supreme Court, ‘physical harm’ in the context of the voluntary undertaking doctrine is limited to bodily injury and does not include purely economic losses. Rojas Concrete v. Flood Testing Laboratories, --N.E.2d--, 2010 WL 5164495 (1st Dist. Dec. 15, 2010)

 

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Defendant wins. Because he did not own house or trampoline, Defendant did not owe Plaintiff any duty, irrespective of whether he knew the trampoline was dangerous. Also, Plaintiff’s failure to present evidence of Defendant’s ownership in trampoline resulted in a waiver of such argument and was fatal to her claim. Simmons v. Reichardt, --N.E.2d--, 2010 WL 5387560 (4th Dist. Dec. 23, 2010)

Past Publications

2022

October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022

2021

December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021

2020

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020

2019

December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019

2018

December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

2017

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017

2016

December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016

2015

December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

2014

December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014

2013

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013

2012

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012

2011

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011

2010

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

2009

December 2009