Results

Hilbert & Power, Ltd. recently obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of defendants in two cases pending in Cook County, Illinois.  In one case, Plaintiff sought recovery for injuries resulting from a slip and fall on a stairway landing outside the entrance to her apartment building.  She testified that she fell due to ice that was under snow that had fallen the night before.  Plaintiff submitted video footage taken a month after the incident, showing water dripping from a nearby balcony onto railings on the landing, which Plaintiff claimed depicted conditions at the time of the incident.  Hilbert & Power was successful in arguing that the video lacked proper foundation and was therefore inadmissible.  Therefore, there was no evidence of an unnatural accumulation.

In the other case, Plaintiff sought recovery for Wrongful Death of a worker who fell from the roof of a commercial building while another worker was installing a metal cap on the parapet wall.  In obtaining summary judgment on the construction negligence count, Hilbert & Power was successful in its argument that the general contractor did not retain control over the work of the roofing contractors. The firm also obtained summary judgment on the Premises Liability count on the basis that the general contractor had neither actual or constructive notice of workers not using fall protection while performing the work.

In a case of first impression, Hilbert & Power was successful in obtaining a ruling from the appellate court of Illinois that the statute that allows for the appointment of a “special representative” of a deceased person so that a plaintiff can institute an action against the decedent for whom no estate is opened (735 ILCS 5/13-209(b)(2)), does have a time limitation on the appointment of that special representative. The appointment must occur within the time set by the applicable statute of limitations or within six months of the defendant’s death.

Hilbert & Power was successful in obtaining the dismissal of a purported nationwide class action on the issue of whether a first party actual cash value (ACV) payment for the total loss of an insured vehicle, includes mandatory vehicle replacement fees incurred by the insured when the vehicle was replaced. In dismissing the case, the U.S. District Court’s findings included a favorable determination of federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and a favorable determination as to the meaning and application of the Limit of Liability provision of the auto insurance policy at issue