CM Report of Recent Decisions (2009v4)
2009 Volume 4
A summary of significant recent developments in the law focusing on substantive issues of litigation and featuring analysis and commentary on special points of interest.
Download this publication as a PDF
Articles in this report
Failure To Disclose Source Of Settlement Payment Waives Right To Contribution And Target Tender Perfected Despite Deactivated Insurer's Involvement
Clausen Miller partner Robert L. Reifenberg prevailed before the Illinois Appellate Court in defending the Illinois State Medical Inter-Insurance Exchange against an equitable contribution/subrogation case brought by the Chicago Hospital Risk Pooling Program.
Illinois Appellate Court Applies Ready Sole Proximate Cause Defense To Settled Defendant
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District recently published an opinion interpreting and applying Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc. Specifically, how to apply the sole proximate cause defense in regards to a settled defendant.
Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Another Blow Against Tort Reform-Medical Malpractice Caps On Non-Economic Damages Are Held Unconstitutional
On February 4, 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hosp., concerning the constitutionality of the current caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. The Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision held that the caps were unconstitutional as violating the separation of powers doctrine under the Illinois Constitution. Justice Thomas recused himself from consideration of the decision.
Indiana Court Adopts Site Specific Approach To Choice Of Law Issue
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently made a critical choice of law ruling which could potentially, and significantly, alter the landscape of environmental insurance coverage litigation pending in Indiana.
The Consequences Of Thorton v. Garcini: Setoff Must Be Raised In Pleadings
The Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Thornton v. Garcini, unambiguously holds that expert testimony is not required to prove negligent infliction of emotional distress.
