Representative Successful Outcomes
Represented insurance company in class action in Texas where an insured challenged claims adjusting practices involving medical bill review. The trial court denied class certification on the basis that the named plaintiff lacked standing, as she never paid out of pocket for the amounts the insurer declined to pay. The appellate court reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court accepted the insurer’s petition for leave to appeal, reversed the appellate court, and affirmed denial of class certification on the basis that the named plaintiff lacked standing.
Represented insurer in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, and the Illinois Supreme Court in putative nationwide class action filed before the Class Action Fairness Act was enacted. On a motion to dismiss, the Circuit Court struck the multi-state class allegations. Following certification of an Illinois-only class, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, initially denied a petition for leave to appeal the certification, but the Illinois Supreme Court directed the Fifth District to consider the appeal. The Fifth District Appellate Court reversed class certification, finding the individual named plaintiffs lacked a valid cause of action given the contract provisions at issue and the conduct alleged. The Circuit Court entered judgment for the defendant as to the entire action, which judgment was upheld on appeal.
Represented national corporation in putative class action filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. Case was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act on the basis that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold set by the CAFA. The federal court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand based on plaintiff’s assertion that it had effectively disclaimed damages above the CAFA jurisdictional threshold in its Complaint and its post-removal briefing. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendant’s petition for leave to appeal and reversed the remand order, finding diversity jurisdiction existed under the CAFA. The Court found the plaintiff’s attempts to disclaim damages ineffective and clarified the appropriate standard for assessing the amount in controversy under the CAFA. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning and ruling anticipated the United States Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in the seminal case Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles.
Represented multiple insurance companies in a series of lawsuits, and the related appeals, filed by plaintiffs in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, challenging claims adjusting practices. The District Court struck the class action allegations in the complaints and dismissed the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the individual actions finding, as a matter of law, that the alleged conduct did not amount to a breach of the relevant insurance policies.
Represented a lender in the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Illinois Appellate Court, and the Illinois Supreme Court in one of a series of putative class actions asserting that preparing certain mortgage documents amounted to the unauthorized practice of law. The Circuit Court dismissed the class actions. Deciding novel issues of law, the Illinois Appellate Court and Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the lender and affirmed dismissal of the action in its entirety.
Represented insurance company in appeal where policyholder sought to stack, or combine, available uninsured motorist policy limits. The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, reversed summary judgment in favor of the policyholder, finding the policy language at issue was significantly different from that analyzed in previous cases where stacking was allowed, and holding that the policy and declaration pages as a whole clearly precluded stacking.