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

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

Insurance policies can be pretty confusing, especially if you are trying to cover medical bills after a car accident. The seasoned team of car accident lawyers at Therman Law Offices has helped many different Chicago area residents with figuring out their rights after an accident. We will negotiate with insurance companies on your behalf and fight to make sure you get the outcome that you deserve.

The Illinois Court of Appeal recently handed down a decision in a case involving a dispute over an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) policy. The insured was involved in an accident caused by another driver. The other driver had an insurance policy that provided liability coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person. The other driver’s insurance company offered to pay the full policy limits to the insured in exchange for a release of liability, but the insured concluded that her damages were more than $25,000.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her own insurance company alleging that it failed to adhere to the terms of her policy agreement by failing to pay for her damages and medical costs in accordance with her UIM policy. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the insured did not submit a written demand for arbitration in accordance with the policy. The trial court ultimately agreed with the insurance company and dismissed relevant portions of the insured’s complaint. The trial court specifically noted that the policy required the insured to submit a written demand if the insured and insurer disagreed about the amount of coverage she was owed.

Continue reading

Elevator accidents are incredibly dangerous, but they can be avoided if the owner and operator of the elevator performs routine maintenance and upkeep to ensure that it is working safely. When the owner and operator fails to take precautions against elevator malfunctions and an accident results, the victim can seek compensation from the owner and operator in a personal injury lawsuit. At Therman Law Offices, we have proudly served numerous victims of Illinois elevator injuries and we are standing by to help you assert your right to compensation.

Recently, a woman filed a complaint against the owners and operators of an elevator seeking compensation for injuries that she suffered while riding the elevator. During the litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the physician that the defendant’s retained to examine the plaintiff to determine the nature and scope of her injuries and whether the injuries were caused by the elevator. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants did not provide a copy of the doctor’s report to the plaintiff within the timeframe required under Illinois statutes.

The trial court denied the motion, but later granted the plaintiff’s motion to certify a question for a higher court to answer regarding whether the trial court has discretion to allow the doctor to testify when the opposing party did not receive a copy of the examination report within the statutory timeframe.

Trip and fall accidents can happen virtually anywhere, and oftentimes they happen when you least expect. In some cases, the injuries heal relatively quickly. But in other instances, the injuries may leave the victim permanently disabled or facing a long road to recovery. If you were hurt in a trip and fall case, contact our seasoned team of Chicago personal injury lawyers today to learn more about whether you are entitled to compensation.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a hotel corporation and a group of defendants providing conference services after he tripped on an uneven floor at the hotel location and allegedly sustained injuries to his back as a result. He alleged that the conference location had a carpeted floor, but that certain tiles underneath the carpet were missing making the floor uneven. The jury concluded that the plaintiff was entirely at fault for his injuries and the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied.

The plaintiff appealed, alleging that the lower court made several reversible errors including failing to bar the defendant’s expert witnesses for not complying with procedural rules, for failing to bar an expert witness as providing cumulative testimony, for admitting evidence of the plaintiff’s prior health that was not at issue in the case, and for admitting evidence that violated the collateral source rule.

Continue reading

When you suffer serious and catastrophic injuries, it is important to ensure that you seek enough compensation to cover your future medical treatment needs. There are many ways to estimate these costs, including consultation with a life care planner or medical expert. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago personal injury attorneys are prepared to help you ensure that your future expenses associated with the injuries that you sustained are properly accounted for in the lawsuit.

Recently, a man filed a personal injury action against a steel company seeking damages for injuries that he suffered when a crane struck a lift in which he was working at the defendant’s facility. The defendant accepted liability for the accident and the matter proceeded to trial for the sole purpose of determining the amount of damages that he was entitled to receive.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $9.9 million in damages and the defendant filed a motion seeking a new trial on the basis that the lower court erred by allowing one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses to offer an opinion indicating that the plaintiff would require surgery in the future. The expert witness was asked whether, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the plaintiff would need hip surgery in the future. When asked what type of hip surgery the plaintiff would require, the doctor testified that he could not answer that question because he was a medical specialist and not a surgical specialist. He indicated that he would send the plaintiff to a hip surgical specialist if the plaintiff were his patient.

The theory of vicarious liability states that an employer will be held liable for the tortious actions of its employees that occur during the course and scope of the worker’s employment. This doctrine seems straightforward, but it can be difficult to determine whether this agency relationship existed at the time that a personal injury accident took place. As seasoned Illinois personal injury lawyers, we are prepared to help you evaluate your claim to see whether vicarious liability applies to your situation.

The Illinois Court of Appeal recently considered a claim in which the plaintiff was injured in an accident involving a truck that was driven by an employee of a company. The driver had just delivered a load of cucumbers to a picking plant. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging 27 causes of action including negligent hiring and vicarious liability against the driver’s employee and the company that brokered the delivery.

The plaintiff settled with many of the defendants and the brokerage firm moved for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the agency relationship ended after the driver delivered the load of produce, while the plaintiff alleged that it continued until the driver reached his “home base.” The trial court agreed with the brokerage company and dismissed the claims against it on the basis that the accident occurred after the work that the produce company hired the brokerage firm to do was completed.

Continue reading

Ride-sharing services are becoming a popular way for people to get from one place to another. For all their conveniences, these services are raising many legal issues. Our dedicated team of Chicago personal injury lawyers has assisted numerous Illinois residents in understanding their legal rights in a broad range of situations.

An Illinois court recently considered a case in which two individuals were hit and injured while crossing in a crosswalk. Prior to the accident, they had called a ride-sharing service to pick them up and take them home at around 2am. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver was incompetent and did not know how to get them to their ultimate destination. The driver took several wrong turns and when the plaintiff pointed out that the driver was lost the driver became agitated and asked the plaintiffs to leave the vehicle. The plaintiffs began walking home, which is when they were struck in a crosswalk. The driver of the vehicle was speeding and failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians.

The plaintiffs named several defendants in the complaint, including the ride-sharing service. The company filed a motion to dismiss alleging that being hit by the vehicle in the crosswalk was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the driver’s conduct. The other defendants, including the driver and a cab company, also filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds. The lower court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, which means that the plaintiffs could not refile the action.

Continue reading

Workers’ compensation claims can be complex, especially when multiple employers are involved. As seasoned Chicago work injury lawyers, we are prepared to help you ensure that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve after suffering an injury on the job. Recently, the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision involving an injured worker and multiple employers. The plaintiff was injured while working as a telecommunications specialist when the floor of the hospital room in which he was standing gave way. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the hospital was negligent by failing to provide a safe place to work, failing to inspect the property before inviting the plaintiff to perform work, by causing damage to the flooring, and by failing to warn the plaintiff of the floor’s poor condition.

The defendant denied liability and filed a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s employer, alleging that if the hospital was found liable then the employer must also be found contributorily negligent. Other motions were filed and eventually the employer sought summary judgment against the hospital, arguing that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect it from conditions on the property. The hospital also filed a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff’s claim alleging that it had no notice of the dangerous conditions at the hospital.

The trial court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment against the hospital on its third-party complaint. It also granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff had not filed a response to the motion. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged defective condition of the hospital’s premises and failed to show that there was a causal connection between the hospital’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injuries.

One of the most tragic types of personal injury cases that we see involves nursing home abuse. Individuals trust these facilities to provide around-the-clock care for elderly individuals during the final years of their lives. Unfortunately, many staff members and facility administrators choose to undermine our state’s clear rules against Illinois nursing home abuse and neglect. If you or a loved one suffered harm in a nursing home, call us today to learn more about your potential rights.

Recently, the Illinois appellate court considered a claim involving a surviving husband who brought several claims against the nursing home where his wife was a resident. The decedent suffered from left-side paralysis following a stroke as well as degenerative joint disease and other conditions. She was marked as a fall risk and suffered two falls during her residency at the facility. One of these falls resulted in a goose-egg sized hematoma on her forehead in addition to other injuries. She was admitted to a hospital for treatment and later discharged. Less than a  month later, she passed away.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the facility was negligent in providing care for his late wife, including preventing her from falling, and that as a result of this negligence the decedent lost her life. The facility moved to dismiss the claim and sought to compel mandatory arbitration in the alternative, pursuant to the resident agreement that the decedent signed as part of her admittance. The plaintiff amended the complaint to include a wrongful death claim following his wife’s passing.

Continue reading

When you are injured due to another driver’s negligence, an important aspect of your recovery is determining which insurance policies provide coverage for your damages. This can become incredibly complicated where multiple policies are involved and where those policies include underinsured motorist provisions. Our dedicated team of Chicago car accident lawyers is ready to help you ensure that you receive the maximum payments possible following a painful and unnecessary accident.

In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered the application of an underinsured motorist policy. The plaintiff filed an underinsured motorist claim against an insurer seeking coverage for injuries that he sustained while driving one of his employer’s 16 vehicles, all of which were covered by policies issued by the insurer. The plaintiff settled with the defendant driver who caused the accident for the defendant’s policy limits of $20,000. The plaintiff then sent notice to the insurer of the underinsured motorist claim and seeking the policy limits. The plaintiff argued that the coverage for all of the 16 policies should be stacked, amounting to $4 million in total available underinsured motorist coverage.

In response, the insurer argued that only $250,000 was available, constituting the policy for one of the vehicles. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that he should be permitted to stack the coverages while the insurer argued that the policy had clear language that prohibited stacking and that because the premiums were listed separately for each vehicle the anti-stacking aspect was clear. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s interpretation that called for stacking all 16 policies was correct. The insurer appealed.

Continue reading