Articles Posted in Car Accidents

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

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

In a bustling area like Chicago, there are many taxis and motorists traversing the roads on a daily basis. This increases the odds that you could be involved in an accident. As dedicated Illinois car accident lawyers, we have handled a wide variety of crashes, including complex accidents involving multiple parties and insurers.

A recent appellate opinion discusses many issues arising from an accident in which a taxicab operator struck a motorcyclist. The plaintiff in the action was the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF), which sought a declaratory judgment against the cab company and the Chicago Taxi Association, providing clarification about the insurance coverage in the underlying personal injury lawsuit.

The lower court concluded that the cab company was not covered and granted summary judgment in favor of IIGF. The cab company appealed on several grounds. First, it contended that the theory of estoppel or waiver prevented IIGF from asserting that it did not have to cover the accident. Second, it alleged that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Finally, it argued that the lower court erred in refusing to grant its motion to reconsider.

Continue reading

When it comes to a personal injury claim, many issues may arise regarding insurance coverage. Having a seasoned Illinois car accident lawyer on your side to help you navigate this process and to ensure that you are treated fairly can make all of the difference. A recent Illinois appellate court decision discussed whether an insurance company had a duty to indemnify its insured in a personal injury action.

The facts that gave rise to the dispute are as follows. A woman filed a lawsuit to recover damages from the driver of a vehicle that struck her vehicle. The woman alleged that the other driver acted negligently when he caused the vehicle he was driving to collide with her vehicle. The woman also alleged that the other driver was driving a vehicle negligently entrusted to him by the insured. More specifically, the woman alleged that the insured knew or should have known that the other driver was intoxicated.

The insured’s insurance company filed for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration describing whether it had a duty to defend the insured and the other driver in the lawsuit. Initially, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. It concluded that the insurance company did not have a duty to defend the insured or the other driver. The woman appealed the trial court’s decision regarding this lack of a duty to defend either party.

Continue reading

When you are injured in a serious accident, there are certain things that you must consider, including getting prompt medical attention and dealing with the inconvenience and stress that the accident causes in your life. Having a seasoned Chicago motorcycle accident attorney on your side can help you understand your legal rights and navigate the legal system efficiently and correctly. As a recent appellate opinion illustrates, failing to abide by certain rules can have devastating consequences for your right to recovery.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the County of Winnebago, stating that he was injured in a motorcycle accident as a result of a defective roadway. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant based on this motion. The plaintiff decided to file a motion to reconsider, which would have been due on January 3, 2017, pursuant to court rules and the order entering judgment in the defendant’s favor.

The plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider that had a date stamp of January 4, 2017. The next day, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking for leave to file his motion to reconsider nunc pro tunc, which means in an effort to correct a prior action and to have the newly filed motion deemed timely. In support of this request, the plaintiff alleged that he suffered from an illness and that because of deadlines in other cases that his attorney was handling, he was unable to file by the deadline. He also cited technical difficulties with the website used to file documents. The plaintiff cited a provision in the Illinois Supreme Court Rules regarding system and user errors and attached an affidavit from the attorney’s paralegal describing her attempt to file the document two minutes before midnight on the date it was due.

Continue reading

One of the biggest headaches that people face after a motor vehicle collision is negotiating with insurance companies and navigating their insurance policies. Not all policies are the same, and insurance companies often bury key language in legalese or at the end of the document. Knowing when you need to submit certain pieces of information or identifying key deadlines is critical. At Therman Law Offices, our team of Chicago car accident lawyers is standing by to help you make sense of your insurance policy and to ensure that you are treated fairly.

A recent appellate decision highlights the complications that can arise with insurance claims after a car accident. The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle crash in 2007 with an uninsured driver. The plaintiff promptly notified her insurance company of the accident. She kept in contact with her assigned insurance representative and updated the representative about her medical treatment and missed work.

In 2009, the plaintiff demanded arbitration with her insurer but did not include the name of the arbitrator whom she intended to use. The insurer denied the request and filed a declaratory judgment action against the plaintiff, asking for a declaration that her demand for arbitration was untimely because it was not submitted within the two-year time period required in the policy. The plaintiff filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment and requesting arbitration. This time, the plaintiff included the name of an arbitrator.

Continue reading

One of the most critical aspects of any car accident case is the discovery phase, in which the parties request information about the accident and each other’s background. Although it is clear that certain types of information are discoverable, there are frequent disputes regarding whether other categories of information and documents must be produced, including medical records. As seasoned Chicago car accident lawyers, we are experienced in handling discovery and know how to ensure that the other side plays by the rules. A recent appellate case demonstrates a common dispute regarding medical records in auto accident cases.

The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant in 2015, alleging that the defendant struck the plaintiff with his vehicle while she was crossing the street in a crosswalk. The defendant asserted an affirmative defense to the complaint allegations, arguing that the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to cross the street properly. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of impact and that the plaintiff’s negligence rendered her at least 50% or more at fault for the accident.

During discovery, the plaintiff sent interrogatories to the defendant, which included a request regarding any medical or physical conditions that required a letter of physician’s approval for the defendant to drive. In response, the defendant indicated that he required a letter of approval involving a diabetic reason and identified the doctor who provided the letter. The plaintiff had also requested the identity of any eye doctor or general practitioner who had treated the defendant in the last 10 years. The defendant claimed that these requests sought information that would violate HIPAA and the doctor-patient privilege. He also asserted that his medical health at the time of the accident was not an issue in the litigation.

Continue reading