Congratulations to Jessica Biagi and Chloe Polo who were honored by Law Bulletin Media and the Jury Verdict Reporter (JVR) for Trial Lawyer Excellence for Outstanding Defense Verdict in a Premises Case.
For more information about the case in question see post here: Jessica and Chloe Earn Full Defense Verdict for Soccer Facility despite $2.8 Million Demand at Trial
Matt Pierotti
2019-L-9782 (Cook County, Illinois)
Plaintiff, a Metra employee, tripped on snow and ice when she was clearing snow and ice from her vehicle in a parking lot owned by ComEd. She claims she slipped in a hole filled with snow, ice, and rocks which was not visible, causing a variety of injuries.
Plaintiff sued Metra, ComEd, and the snow removal company that Metra had hired to clear snow in that parking lot. CGW was retained to defend the snow removal company, which plaintiff alleged had created an unnatural accumulation of snow and ice which caused her injuries. Additionally, Metra and ComEd filed claims against the snow removal company for contractual indemnity and contribution, arguing that pursuant to the snow removal contract, the snow removal company was required to pay for both for their legal defense and any indemnification to the plaintiff.
Chloe Polo
CGW attorneys found that the contract only called for snow removal when Metra demanded it, and that they had not called for snow removal on the day in question. While there was a light snow the morning of the occurrence, the last major snow event was four days prior to the incident, when the snow removal company did clear snow from the site.
The case underwent a lengthy discovery process lasting three years. As the case approached trial, attorneys Matt Pierotti and Chloe Polo filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Snow & Ice. CGW’s motion showed that the snow removal contractor did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because they were not contracted to remove snow on the date in question, that there is no evidence to support that plaintiff slipped on an unnatural accumulation of ice, and that the hole plaintiff stepped in was open and obvious.
The judge reviewed the motions and replies and the extensive deposition history, and agreed with Matt and Chloe, and granted CGW’s motion finding that Plaintiff did not provide evidence that the snow removal company failed to exercise reasonable care in plowing the lot and that there was no evidence that the plowing caused any pothole. However, even after the court ruled favorably for the snow removal contractor, Metra continued to argue that the snow removal company owed them defense and indemnification. Metra claimed that even if the contractor was found to be not negligent, that their actions nevertheless may have contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, and therefore triggered the indemnification clause in the contract regardless of fault. Further Motions for Summary judgment were filed on the issue of indemnification, and Matt Pierotti argued that it would be against public policy and caselaw to hold that the contractor owed a duty to indemnify Metra after being held not negligent themselves.
After three years of discovery, two motions for summary judgment from Matt, Chloe, with assistance from their law clerks Lindsey Aranguren and Tala Abusharif, as well as two rounds of oral argument on both motions, the judge finally granted CGW’s second motion for summary judgment, fully dismissing the snow removal contractor from the matter entirely.
2020-L-007145 (Cook County, Illinois)
Partner Shipra Mehta won another summary judgment representing a construction manager who had done construction work on a church.
Plaintiff, a 58-year-old woman, was a member of a small church who slipped while she was walking up the church podium. She sustained injuries to her arm and shoulder, requiring surgery and incurring significant medical bills. Plaintiff sued a number of parties including the church and a variety of construction companies that had performed work on the church over the years. Shipra took up the defense of a construction manager who had done construction work on the church over a decade before the incident. All parties except the construction manager were dismissed voluntarily early on due to claims of non-involvement with the subject area of the fall.
Shipra defended the construction manager vigorously through over two years of discovery. Plaintiff attempted to attach liability to the construction manager by claiming both that the construction manager designed and constructed the podium that plaintiff fell on, and that the construction manager was responsible for ongoing maintenance and repair duties for the podium. Plaintiff further alleged that the construction manager was somehow responsible for allowing the premises to remain in dangerous and slippery condition despite not having worked on the podium for over 10 years.
After completing the necessary discovery, Shipra filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by the statute of repose, and there were no facts whatsoever which supported a claim that there was any ongoing duty on behalf of the construction manager to the church or its patrons. Further, Shipra claimed any defect was open and obvious and that plaintiff cannot establish a proximate cause between any action from the construction company and the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge agreed, granting the motion and dismissing the construction company with Plaintiff’s claims in the entirety.
2021-L-009072 (Cook County, Illinois)
A young woman standing in the checkout line bent down to pet the dog of another couple in line and the dog turned to bite the woman in the face. The woman brought a 6-count complaint against the dog owners and the pet store, claiming both physical and emotional injuries as a result of the incident.
Plaintiff made allegations of negligence as well as violations of the Illinois Animal Control Act against both the owners of the dog and the pet supply store. The allegations against the pet supply store claim that the store was negligent in failing to monitor the dog, that it knew the dog was vicious and failed to restrain it, that the store failed to properly transfer the dog to its owners, and that the store failed to warn customers of the dog’s “vicious propensities.”
Attorneys Shipra Mehta and Chloe Polo took up defense of the pet store and believed the pet store had no liability whatsoever under either a negligence theory or under the Illinois Animal Control Act. Shipra and Chloe positioned the case for a motion to dismiss, but faced two hurdles: the store manager at the time of the incident had left the company and was unreachable, and secondly the case was given to a notoriously plaintiff-friendly judge in the Law Division of Cook County, already a heavily plaintiff-favored venue.
Nevertheless, Shipra and Chloe persisted in filing the motion, attempting to spare their client the burden of discovery, litigation, and defense costs. They claimed that the Animal Control Act does not apply to the pet store whatsoever, and that plaintiffs cannot establish that the pet store owed a duty to the plaintiff even accepting all the allegations of the complaint as true. The judge agreed with Shipra and Chloe and granted the motion dismissing the pet store from the case.
2019-L-100 (Kendall County, Illinois)
Ashley S. Koda just earned a complete defense verdict in her first solo jury trial.
Plaintiff (a 66-year-old man) was in a store at the cash register completing a purchase, when another customer struck him with her shopping cart. An ambulance was called and plaintiff waited in the store for an hour talking to store employees before being transported to the emergency room.
Plaintiff brought a complaint against the other shopper alleging negligent use of the cart, and against the store, alleging that the shopping carts posed a hazard to shoppers and that the store was negligent in providing the carts to customers. Costello Ginex & Wideikis was retained to defend the store.
During the course of litigation, Plaintiff managed to incur significant medical specials related to the heel of his foot, which he attributed to the incident. Plaintiff also settled with the co-defendant, leaving the store as the only remaining defendant. CGW attorneys estimated that the store faced little liability as there was no evidence of a defect with the cart, and the incident did not seem to realistically cause the increasing medical bills Plaintiff was incurring. The case went into discovery for over three years due to Covid delays and Plaintiff’s insistence that the case was worth more than what CGW and the store was willing to offer. Because CGW handled the case on a flat fee basis, they were able to efficiently defend the case without causing their client to incur ballooning defense costs.
Ashley Koda took over the case as it headed into jury trial. At the beginning of trial, Ashley barred a significant portion of Plaintiff’s medical specials, dropping the number down by nearly 70%. During trial, she succeeded in barring the bulk of Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions on the basis that his opinions were rooted in engineering principles relevant to product liability – but not premises – cases.
At closing, Ashley argued to the jury that the store was not negligent in providing or using the shopping carts in question, and that the incident did not proximately cause Plaintiff’s injuries as there was some evidence of heel complaints pre-dating the occurrence. The jury deliberated for only fifteen minutes before returning a full defense verdict in favor of our client.
20-L-454 (Will County, Illinois)
Brittney Frederick and Jessica Biagi won summary judgment on a case involving a trip and fall in a shopping plaza in Will County. Plaintiff was an older woman who claimed she was walking from the parking lot into a liquor store when she tripped over an unmarked height differential on the sidewalk. Plaintiff sustained a shattered/fractured wrist requiring two surgeries, and then filed suit against the shopping plaza and the liquor store. Jessica and Brittney defended the liquor store on behalf of CGW.
Plaintiff initially made a settlement demand to both Defendants totaling $300,000, but Brittney and Jessica didn’t believe their client owed any duty to maintain the sidewalk. They moved for summary judgment on behalf of their client, arguing that the terms of the lease between the liquor store and shopping plaza put the responsibility of sidewalk repairs squarely on the plaza, not on their client. Because of this, the liquor store owed no duty to Plaintiff. They further argued that any responsibility that the liquor store took on voluntarily, like shoveling or sweeping the sidewalk, did not create a duty to repair the sidewalk.
Plaintiff argued that the liquor store still owed a duty to provide a safe ingress and egress to Plaintiff because she was a business invitee, and this was enough to establish a duty on the part of the liquor store. The Judge agreed with Brittney and Jessica, and believed that any duty to Plaintiff was owed solely by the shopping plaza, and dismissed the liquor store from the suit.
The firm is happy to report that Partner Jessica Biagi is on a winning streak in Cook County! From February 28, 2022 to May 20, 2022, Jessica tried three cases before three separate Cook County juries. All three trials resulted in a not guilty verdict. This last trial marked Jessica's sixth not guilty verdict in a row and twelfth not guilty verdict in her career (out of 14 jury trials).
The first trial was a premises liability case involving a 250lb gate that fell off the wall and landed on a five-year old boy at an indoor soccer facility. The Plaintiffs retained a forensic engineer, who opined that the facility should have implemented a preventative maintenance program to discover deterioration in the concrete that caused the anchors to fail. Plaintiffs asked for more than $2.8 million at trial related to a femur fracture requiring two surgeries, ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder, subsequent hospitalizations and a loss of future earning capacity.
The second trial involved a snow removal contractor. The plaintiff slipped on ice and claimed that the contractor failed to properly salt and plow the snow after the last weather event. The plaintiff asked for more than $2 million at trial related to a left ankle fracture, permanent limitations walking, and six years of lost wages.
The third trial involved a no contact collision. The plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to stop, impeded his path of travel, and caused him to lose control of his motor scooter and crash into the side of the road. The plaintiff asked for more than $1.5 million at trial related to a humerus fracture requiring internal fixation, multiple fractures to the left midfoot requiring external fixation, and claims related to permanent limitations.
In each trial, Jessica persuaded the jury that her client was not at fault and returned a full defense verdict sending the plaintiff home with nothing.
2018-L-6481 (Cook County, Illinois)
CGW was retained to defend an indoor soccer indoor soccer facility. facility in a premises liability case involving a 250lb gate that fell off the wall and landed on a five-year old boy. The Plaintiffs retained a forensic engineer, who opined that the facility should have implemented a preventative maintenance program to discover deterioration in the concrete that caused the anchors to fail. Plaintiffs asked for more than $2.8 million at trial related to a femur fracture requiring two surgeries, ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder, subsequent hospitalizations and a loss of future earning capacity.
Attorneys Jessica Biagi and Chloe Polo took the case to trial, and showed that there was no way the sports facility could have notice of any defective condition in the gate. After deliberating for less than 80 minutes, the jury agreed and awarded a full defense verdict to the soccer facility.
2018-L-006481 (Cook County, Illinois)
Jessica successfully defended an indoor soccer facility after a 250 lb gate fell off the wall and landed on a five-year old boy. The Plaintiffs retained a forensic engineer, who opined that the facility should have implemented a preventative maintenance program to discover the deterioration in the concrete that caused the anchors to fail. The Plaintiffs also argued that the facility was negligent in failing to properly inspect, maintain, and repair the premises.
The five-year old suffered a femur fracture requiring two surgeries. Plaintiffs further claimed that the five-year-old suffered from ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder, which caused emotional distress, two subsequent hospitalizations, permanent limitations, and a loss of future earning capacity. Plaintiffs asked for more than $2.8 million at trial.
Jessica represented the soccer facility and argued that the facility was not negligent, that the facility did not have notice, and that the father shared fault for failing to properly supervise the minor. Jessica further maintained that the minor did not suffer from PTSD and that any ongoing issues were related to his pre-existing condition, and not to the incident at the facility. After hearing from 13 witnesses over a 6-day trial, the jury agreed that the facility was not negligent and returned a full defense verdict. This marks Jessica’s 10th trial earning a complete defense win for her client.
Plaintiff took her sons to a play area which included inflatable playing areas and an inflatable slide. Both plaintiff and her sons used the slide multiple times, plaintiff went down the slide again holding her son, where she says her toe got caught on a piece of fabric which pulled her backwards and caused her injury. Plaintiff alleged that the inflatable provider had dangerous jumping surfaces and failed to maintain the slide in question, leading to her injuries.
Shipra and Chloe defended the inflatable slide provider, and showed that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that there was any kind of defect with the slide in question. Even after many depositions and years of testimony, Plaintiff could only support her claim with speculation as to the cause of her injuries. Not only had her children and other patrons used the slide with no issues and the inflatable provider had no notice of a dangerous condition. The judge agreed that there was no evidence of negligence and dismissed the inflatable provider prior to trial.
2017-L-000052 (Lake County, Illinois)
A woman slipped and fell while leaving a Bank of America in Waukegan, Illinois, and then died months later. The deceased husband, as Special Administrator of her Estate brought suit against the Bank of America and property owner, attributing her death to complications from this fall, bringing wrongful death and survival claims against the defendants. Plaintiff alleged the ADA ramp was negligently maintained, though as the ramp was built a few years before the fall, the owner and property manager subsequently sued the contractors involved with the prior construction alleging improper construction and noncompliance with the plans and specifications.
Shipra Mehta defended the concrete subcontractor and after multiple depositions including the completion of expert discovery, filed a motion for summary judgment emphasizing the speculative nature of the overall claim, lack of notice of any issues with the construction, and compliance with the construction plans and specifications. As such, Shipra argued, no reasonable jury could find against the concrete subcontractor. The Court agreed, granting the concrete subcontractor's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims brought against the subcontractor in its entirety.
Plaintiff was volunteering to help a workout facility relocate their business when he fell off a 20+ foot ladder, injuring himself. He sued the workout facility, alleging negligence and claimed an owed duty under various legal principles. Among other claims, plaintiff claimed that the workout facility was negligent in failing to coordinate the relocation work in an appropriate manner and provided him with a defective ladder.
Plaintiff was walking to her place of employment at a strip mall in Indiana, where she alleged that she tripped and fell on rocks that were displaced from a large decorative rock bed. Plaintiff sued the business and property owner alleging negligence and premises liability counts. Brian Brenn took up defense of the property owner, and was skeptical of the circumstances of the fall. He aimed to set the case up for a motion for summary judgment and took multiple depositions with this in mind.
2017-L-423 (Illinois, Will County)
Plaintiff, an elderly man tripped on a small staircase at a daycare when coming to pick up his granddaughter. He sued the daycare, bringing negligence and premises liability counts against the daycare. Plaintiff also claimed that the stairs were not up to code and hired an expert to support the claim.
Shipra Mehta defended the child care facility, and after multiple depositions, filed a motion showing that there was no defect the plaintiff or their expert could point to in the staircase, and that the stairs were an open and obvious hazard. As such no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff. The judge granted Shipra’s motion, but the plaintiff appealed the decision to the 3rd District of Illinois Appellate Court. Shipra continued to defend her client at the appellate level, drafting a brief and defending her motion in oral argument. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s granding of the motion for summary judgment, resulting in a full defense verdict.
2019-L-000369 (Illinois, Kane County)
Attorney Shipra Mehta won a motion to dismiss on the issue of a liability waiver, avoiding unnecessary litigation and defending a paintball facility. Plaintiff was playing paintball at a commercial paintball course and tripped over a tree stump that was in a wooded area adjacent to the main paintball playing area. However, the plaintiff signed a liability waiver before playing paintball. Upon receiving notice of the lawsuit, Shipra filed a motion arguing that the plaintiff waived her right to recover against the facility based on the facts alleged, and the court agreed dismissing the matter in its entirety.
2017-L-883 (Illinois, Cook County)
A 27 year old plaintiff filed a premises liability claim against a fraternal organization arising out of injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained after falling down stairs on the defendant's premises and suffering an ankle fracture. Plaintiff alleged that a loose handrail caused her to fall. Plaintiff underwent an initial surgery and a subsequent hardware removal surgery. She further claimed that she suffered blood clots, including a pulmonary embolism, as a result of the occurrence and was required to be on blood thinners for the rest of her life.
Jessica Biagi vigorously defended the fraternal organization over the course of a 6-day trial, where over 12 witnesses were presented including the surgeon, three hematologists, and the physical therapist. Plaintiff presented three post-occurrence witnesses who testified that the handrail moved one to three inches in each direction. Additionally, Plaintiff called an architect who opined the handrail was unsafe and violated applicable building codes as well as a hematology expert who opined that the blood clots and need for lifelong medication was related to the occurrence. Plaintiff asked for a verdict in the amount of $1,520,031.12. However, Jessica made the case that the handrail did was not the cause of Plaintiff's fall, and within only one hour of deliberation, the jury agreed and returned a full defense verdict.
2017-L-010958 (Illinois, Cook County)
Plaintiff slipped and fell on what he alleged was an “oily substance” at a gas station, fracturing his ankle and requiring surgery with an estimated total value over $200,000. However, Erin Cannon, representing the gas station, pushed plaintiff to multiple admissions at his deposition including that it was raining during the incident and plaintiff stepped through puddles on his way into the gas station. After depositions and extensive discovery Erin used these admissions to show in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not make a prima facie case for negligence. The court agreed and granted the motion, ending the matter before a lengthy trial.
2016-L-288 (Illinois, Kane County)
Plaintiff entered a local community center and tripped on a mat placed at the entryway, sustaining injuries and suing the community center. Plaintiff brought suit against the community center, the maintenance company for the center, and other ownership entities associated with the center.
Partner James Barrow defended the maintenance company, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there was no reason for the maintenance company to be in the case. He argued the plaintiff could not make a prima facie case of negligence, that based on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony he could not point to a reason for his fall and could not establish causation as to his injuries, and that the rug, to the extent it was a defect, was open and obvious. The trial court granted the motion dismissing the maintenance company from the case. When the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, James argued in defense of his motion and the judge upheld his order.
2017-L-002318 (Illinois, Cook County)
An employee of a national grocery chain store location in Chicago was putting carts away when he fell in the parking lot, claiming to have fallen on an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow. The grocery chain, after settling the matter with the employee, filed a subrogation case on the employee’s behalf against the property owner and the snow removal contractor, alleging that they allowed a negligent accumulation of ice and snow that caused the employee’s injury.
Attorney Erin Cannon of Costello Legal took up defense of the property owner, and ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the landowner was not negligent in any way, as there was no evidence of an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, that the landowner had no notice of any defect on the premises, and to the extent there was any defect it would have been open and obvious. Erin focused on inconsistencies in the plaintiff’ deposition testimony that made it clear the plaintiff could not meet their burden to show that an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow existed and the judge agreed, granting the motion and dismissing the property owner.
a proud member of:
