Chicago Skyline
YOU’RE GOING THROUGH ENOUGH AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP
Law firm group photo
43 Million

Total Cases Won

3,500 +

Trusted Clients

99%

Successful cases

26 Million

Total Personal Injury Cases Won

17 Million

Total Work Injury Cases Won

by

A common issue that arises after a motor vehicle accident is whether the parties involved in the accident have insurance policies that provide coverage for physical and property damage. In some situations, this is easy to determine but in others questions may arise regarding whether a policy’s coverage extends to a driver or victim. As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers we are ready to assist you with protecting your rights after a car accident. We will assist with all aspects of the matter including negotiating with insurance companies on your behalf.

A recent case explored the limits of coverage for an insurance policy in a one-car accident. The accident involved a non-owned, uninsured vehicle. The passenger of the accident died as a result of his injuries. The passenger would occasionally live rent-free with his father’s ex-wife at the time of the crash and had been living there for six months. The ex-wife never officially adopted the passenger.

The ex-wife had three insurance policies that provided uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Two of the policies also provided coverage for medical expenses up to $10,000. The special administrator of the passenger’s estate asserted a claim for medical payment coverage and uninsured motorist benefits under the policies. The insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a statement that the decedent was not entitled to coverage benefits because he did not meet the definition of a “resident relative” under the policy provisions. He was not related to the insured by blood, marriage, or adoption on the date of the accident and did not primarily reside with her, according to their view.

Continue reading

by

When you are injured on someone else’s property, you can bring a personal injury action against the owner of the property to recover compensation for your injuries and damages. In cases where the injury takes place on a publicly maintained property, however, different issues may arise regarding liability and the evidence that you have to establish to show that the municipality or government entity failed to use due care in maintaining the property. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to help you with your Chicago premises liability claim after a careless governmental entity failed to protect you from preventable danger.

In a recent case, the plaintiff appealed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago in her lawsuit, where she alleged that the City failed to maintain one of its streets in a reasonably safe condition causing her to slip and fall into a large hole. The plaintiffs alleged that summary judgment was not proper because the plaintiff was an intended and permitted user of the street where the fall took place.

According to the City, it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the street in a safe condition because the plaintiff was not a permitted user of the street. It argued that its duty to maintain property was limited by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, which provides that a plaintiff must be a legally intended and permitted user of a property before the government entity can be subject to liability for any resulting injuries. It further alleged that the plaintiff was parked illegally under state law because she parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant and that her vehicle was in a yellow-painted no-parking area.

Continue reading

by

As winter approaches, Chicago property owners should review the rules that apply to maintain a safe property for pedestrians, guests, and business invitees. Under Illinois law, a property owner does not have a duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from his or her property. This standard may seem straightforward, but many slip and fall cases involve disputes about whether the accumulation was natural or unnatural, resulting from a modification or improvement that the property owner made. Our diligent team of Chicago premises liability attorneys is prepared to help you fight for your right to compensation after an avoidable slip and fall accident.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff’s slip and fall lawsuit was dismissed for failure to prove that the defendant created an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow. The plaintiff argued that this rule did not apply to her situation because she slipped on paint that was on top of a handicap symbol in a parking space in a parking lot that became unreasonably slippery, according to her complaint. In support of this assertion, the plaintiff provided an affidavit from an expert witness. The defendants moved to strike the affidavit, which the trial court granted on the basis that it was inadmissible and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On review, the appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court should not have struck the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit in its entirety or entered summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of whether the natural accumulation rule applied. Based on the evidence in the record, the appellate concluded that the jury could have found in favor of plaintiff’s theory that the handicap parking lot symbol was unreasonably slippery. The appellate court found that the natural accumulation rule did not apply to this situation because the main issue is whether the symbol was unreasonably slippery when it became wet regardless of whether the moisture resulted from a natural or unnatural accumulation.

Continue reading

by

If you live in Chicago, you know that ice and snow are a serious threat to safety. Countless Illinois slip and fall accidents happen each year when property owners fail to take responsible action to mitigate the threat of injuries from accumulating ice and snow. If you were hurt on another person’s property as a result of their negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact us today to start learning about your potential lawsuit.

Recently, an Illinois appellate court decided a case in which the plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries when he slipped on ice on a sidewalk outside of his residence. He sued the homeowner’s association and the snow removal contractor that serviced the condo complex. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff in a slip and fall case based on ice or snow must show that there was an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow or that the ice and snow accumulated unnaturally as the result of something that the property owner was doing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the ice and snow on which the plaintiff slipped was the result of natural accumulation and that they had not done anything to cause a greater amount of ice or snow to accumulate. The homeowner’s association also alleged that it did not have notice of water or ice pooling on the sidewalk area where the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff responded saying that he was suing not based on the theory of unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, but on the basis that the drainage system suffered from a defective design that resulted in an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow.

Continue reading

by

The workers’ compensation system is designed to provide benefits for injured workers if the injury occurred in the course and scope of the worker’s employment. This can create legal issues regarding whether an employee should seek compensation from an employer through the claims process or in civil court. One area where issues tend to arise the most is situations involving temp agencies and other third-party employers. Our seasoned team of Chicago work injury lawyers is ready to help you ensure that you pursue your right to compensation in the appropriate way.

Recently, an appellate court considered a case in which an injured man filed a civil claim against a manufacturing company seeking compensation for personal injuries he allegedly sustained while working at the manufacturing company’s premises through a temp agency. The plaintiff was reportedly operating a forklift when it fell from inside of the tractor-trailer as the tractor-trailer moved away from the loading dock.

The plaintiff originally filed a workers’ compensation claim against the manufacturing company, but it instructed the worker to file a workers’ compensation claim against the temp agency. The worker filed this claim and received benefits from the temp agency.

Continue reading

by

Rental cars offer an incredibly convenient way to travel when you are away from home on vacation or a business trip. There are specific issues that arise when it comes to liability and insurance for rental cars when accidents take place while a renter is behind the wheel. If you were involved in a car accident and one of the parties including yourself was renting a vehicle at the time of the accident, it is crucial for you to understand your rights. Our seasoned team of Chicago car accident lawyers is standing by to assist you.

Recently, an Illinois Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a rental car collision. A man rented a car with a policy that provided for supplemental liability protection but included an exclusion for situations where the man was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. While driving the rental car, the man was involved in a crash that injured a woman and killed her husband. The man was convicted of driving under the influence of drugs.

The wife filed a personal injury action on behalf of herself and her late husband alleging that he was negligent in operating the rental car and that she sustained injuries and her husband died as a result. She also filed a complaint against the rental car company seeking a declaration that it provided coverage for her damages. The rental car company filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was not required to provide coverage due to the exclusion in the policy and the fact that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the crash.

Continue reading

by

Slip and fall accidents are one of the most painful and sudden types of premises liability injuries that Chicago residents can suffer, especially in our winter months. There are many considerations that you have to make after a slip and fall accident, including whether you may be entitled to compensation from the person or company who owned the property where you slipped. As seasoned Chicago slip and fall attorneys, we are ready to help you explore your legal options and to ensure that you are treated fairly.

A recent case discussed a slip and fall accident at a bar. Reportedly, the plaintiff was leaving the bar when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice resulting in a broken leg. The plaintiff had several surgeries to address the pain, but he still experienced discomfort and reported having a limited range of motion due to the injury. The plaintiff filed a claim against the bar seeking compensation based on a number of theories including negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence showing how the floor where he slipped became wet or showing that the defendant had constructive notice about the dangerous condition on the property. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment. The court started by reiterating that a business owner owes a duty to patrons to use ordinary care in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition. The court then highlighted several pieces of evidence in the record showing that the moisture at the exit of the establishment had likely been there for quite some time, meaning that the owner had a reasonable period of time to identify and remedy the dangerous condition.

Continue reading

by

Landowners owe a duty to guests to ensure that the property is reasonably safe and to provide warnings against any known dangerous conditions. This duty changes, however, if the person injured was a trespasser at the time of the accident. As a defense to premise liability claims some defendants will attempt to argue that the plaintiff was trespassing or that the plaintiff did not fall within a class of people to whom it owed a duty. As dedicated Chicago personal injury lawyers, we are here to help you ensure that you receive the fair treatment and compensation that you deserve.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff reportedly fell while walking through a walkway at a hotel that the defendant owned. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff was a trespasser and that it did not owe her a duty of care when she decided to take a shortcut to her office building by walking through the defendant’s property. The plaintiff alleged that summary judgment was not proper and that the defendant owed her a duty of care. The trial court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court reversed finding that there was a question of fact regarding whether plaintiff may have been a lawful pedestrian on the walkway located on the defendant’s driveway. Although the defendant owned the property and the plaintiff was not a guest at the hotel, the court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care under the frequent trespass exception. In short, the exception states that where a landowner is aware that trespassers frequently use a portion of their property, a duty arises to ensure the safety of those trespassers.

Continue reading

by

One of the most challenging aspects of any personal injury claim is preparing for trial. This involves gathering as much evidence as possible and gaining the best understanding of the arguments and evidence that the opposing party will present. There are a number of rules that are designed to make this process as fair as possible, but sometimes disputes arise regarding how the rules should be interpreted. As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers, we have substantial experience in preparing for trial and will help you secure the outcome that you deserve.

The plaintiff in a recent case filed a complaint seeking compensation for injuries that she suffered while allegedly riding an elevator controlled and maintained by the defendants. The plaintiff had filed a motion attempting to bar the defendants from admitting testimony from the defendants’ examining physician on the grounds that neither the physician nor the defendants provided the plaintiff with a copy of the report that the examiner prepared after examining the plaintiff. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 215(c) sets a specific time limit for when parties must exchange this report in anticipation of presenting the examining physician for testimony at trial.

The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and the plaintiff filed an interlocutory request to have a higher court determine whether the trial court has the discretion to allow a medical examiner under Rule 215 to testify when the opposing party was not provided with a copy of the report that the examiner prepared within the specified timeframe.

Continue reading

by

Work-related injuries often raise complicated issues regarding liability especially when multiple insurance companies are involved. It can be incredibly difficult to know whether an insurance company has a duty to provide coverage in a lawsuit or whether you are being treated in a fair manner. The workers’ compensation and personal injury lawyers at Therman Law Offices have helped many injured workers to receive the judgment or compensation that they deserve following a work injury and we are standing by to assist you.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case involving a worker who suffered injuries while working on an escalator. A construction company had hired an escalator company as a subcontractor on a project. The injured worker was an employee for the escalator company. According to the parties’ subcontract agreement, the escalator company named the general contractor and the owner of the property where the construction was taking place as additional insureds under its insurance policy.

When the man was injured, he sued the general contractor and the owner of the premises. The general contractor deferred the claim to the escalator company that employed the worker, but it denied coverage. The general contractor then filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the escalator company’s insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the general contractor as an additional insured. It added the escalator company as an additional defendant and argued that it may have breached the subcontract agreement by failing to have adequate insurance.

Continue reading