Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago, IL) and Geoffrey Belzer (Partner-Chicago, IL) secured summary judgment in the Kane County Circuit Court, Illinois, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a building owner, in a premises liability action arising from an alleged slip and fall incident. The plaintiff claimed she sustained injuries after purportedly slipping and falling in her apartment bathroom due to a water leak. Keti and Geoffrey moved for summary judgment on multiple independent grounds, arguing that (1) the owner owed no duty to the plaintiff because it neither possessed nor controlled the subject premises; (2) the owner lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged water condition; and (3) the alleged condition in the plaintiff’s bathroom constituted an open and obvious danger as a matter of law. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in the client’s favor, finding no genuine issue of material fact.

Kimberly Blair (Partner-Chicago, IL), Robert Merlo (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Courtney Wood (Associate-Chicago, IL) secured a defense verdict in a legal malpractice action brought in Cook County. Kim, Bob and Courtney represented personal injury attorneys who had previously represented the plaintiff in an underlying motor vehicle accident case.

The plaintiff alleged that our clients improperly recommended an $845,000 settlement in the underlying action, which involved claims stemming from a motor vehicle collision, including a claim that a C5-C6 herniation was sustained as a result of the accident. Plaintiff contended that our clients failed to advise him of an excess insurance policy and asserted that, had he known of the additional coverage, he would not have agreed to settle underlying case for $845,000 and instead would have proceeded to trial.

The Court bifurcated the trial of the malpractice action, and directed the parties to first try the underlying auto matter – the “case within a case” – with the understanding that a verdict below $845,000 would result in the absence of causation and damages, thereby entitling the defendant attorneys to judgment in their favor.

After six days of the trial’s first phase (the case-within-a-case phase), plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $2,406,000 in damages. The jury returned a verdict of just $50,232.04, eliminating any basis for damages on the legal malpractice claim and resulting in a complete defense victory for our clients.

Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago/New York, NY) and Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) secured dismissal of a claim alleging national origin discrimination in housing before the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In this matter, HUD found no probable cause that national origin was considered in the respondents’ handling of the claimant’s maintenance requests or his concerns regarding unauthorized vehicles in his assigned parking space. HUD noted that even if the comment “go back to your country” was made, this single isolated comment did not rise to the level of harassment or discriminatory intent in connection with the respondents’ processing of the claimant’s maintenance requests. HUD also noted that additional maintenance requests could not be completed because the complainant refused to grant access to his unit. With respect to the parking issue, HUD found insufficient evidence of discriminatory motive based on national origin, observing that the respondents attempted to locate the vehicle owner parked in the complainant’s spot and, when unsuccessful, offered the claimant’s monetary compensation for the inconvenience.

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY)​ and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago/New York, NY) secured dismissal of a disability discrimination housing claim before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The charge, brought by the tenants' children, arose from a request to modify the tenant’s shower in the unit to accommodate a disability. During its investigation, the Commission found that the respondents permitted the requested modification, provided the tenant covered the cost, as required under applicable law. When the tenant indicated they could not afford the modification and instead requested early termination of the lease, the respondents also granted that request, allowing termination without a penalty.  As such, the Commission found that the allegations of disability discrimination were unsupported and dismissed the charge.

Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) and Anthony Goldner (Partner-Chicago) obtained summary judgment in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s bus company client and its driver. This case arose from a collision between two buses in which the plaintiff was a passenger on our client’s bus at the time of the accident. During the plaintiff’s deposition, she admitted that she did not believe our driver did anything wrong to cause the accident. She later acknowledged that she did not know precisely how the collision occurred.

Relying on these admissions and the absence of other supporting evidence, Keti and Anthony moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish either a breach of duty or proximate cause attributable to our driver. In opposition, the plaintiff contended that video footage of the incident allegedly showed our client’s bus “angled out” of its lane, thereby creating a question of fact regarding negligence. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument and agreed with Wilson Elser’s position. Citing First District authority referenced in our motion, the court held that even if the bus appeared slightly “angled out” of its lane, that fact alone was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Based on the lack of evidence supporting negligence or causation, the court granted Keti and Anthony’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against our clients.

Chicago partners Anthony Goldner and Charles Prochaska IV obtained a not guilty verdict following a two-week bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of an uninsured landlord in a mold personal injury case brought by a 47-year-old foreclosure and bankruptcy defense attorney. The complaint, originally filed in 2021 was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff prior to the original trial date, was refiled in 2025. The plaintiff alleged there had been at least six leaks lasting up to an hour each time from the ceiling vent in his bathroom, which were not promptly addressed. The plaintiff retained two air quality experts who found minimal to moderate amounts of mold in his apartment, but he complained of chronic headaches, insomnia, cognitive deficiencies, and inflammation in all areas of his body that continue to the present day with little improvement. The claims were supported by several treating physicians who testified that the exposures to mold led to the development of chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS), a permanent condition that could lead to a lower life expectancy. Plaintiff further alleged that the CIRS significantly reduced his income as a practicing attorney and his retained economist expert forecast a past and future loss of income up to $5 million. With a demand of $3.75 million to settle, talks at a mediation and before the first trial date were not successful. At trial, Anthony and Chuck mounted a full defense and lengthy cross-examination of the plaintiff that successfully challenged the plaintiff’s claims. The court distinguished the relative paucity of expertise of the plaintiff’s air quality inspectors and treating physicians with the industrial hygiene and medical experts retained by the defense. The fundamental weakness of the plaintiff’s medical causation case was fatal to his case.

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL), Brigitte Smith (Partner-Baltimore, MD), and Zachary Miller (Associate-Baltimore, MD) represented a provider of public transportation services in Baltimore City to those with physical disabilities. The legally blind plaintiff, a regular rider, filed suit after he suffered a severe fracture when he fell on ice while walking from his front door to our client’s bus. The plaintiff claimed that our driver was negligent in not assisting him while he walked to the bus as the driver was required to do, but admitted that he did not wait for the driver to help him on the day of his injury. The case was tried to a defense verdict by Brigitte and Zak and Melissa handled the appeal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on the jury’s verdict. The only issue plaintiff raised on appeal was the trial court’s order denying his motion to strike a supplemental medical expert opinion that we disclosed approximately 10 days before trial. It was plaintiff’s position that this testimony at trial was the basis for the jury’s defense verdict and it should not have been allowed, so he was entitled to a new trial. In the end, the court agreed with our argument that plaintiff’s own dilatory conduct in discovery led to the late timing of our supplemental disclosure in the first place, so the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike. 

James Thurston (Partner-Chicago), Daniel Tranen (Partner-St. Louis, MO), and Robert Curtis (Associate-St. Louis, MO) secured a declaratory judgment dismissal on motion on the pleadings for an insurance company client in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in this matter, executives at a company insured by our client, sought coverage for a lawsuit and a demand letter arising out of their provision of personal guarantees to the company for more than $14 million in debt to a lender and a supplier. The client had denied coverage because these personal guarantees were not made in the executives' capacity as officers of the company. The executives argued that they would not have made the personal guarantees but for the fact that they were officers of the company. However, the court agreed with the insurance company client that personal guarantees are personal obligations, and therefore, cannot be made by the executives in their "capacity" as officers of the company, particularly since if they had done so, then it would have been the company guaranteeing its own debt.

Edward O’Brien (Partner-Louisville, KY), Geoffrey Belzer (Partner-Chicago, IL), and Andrew-John Bokeno (Associate-Louisville, KY) recently succeeded in securing an affirmance of summary judgment in the Ohio Court of Appeals in a multi-claim civil lawsuit brought against the firm’s client, a manufactured home community. Plaintiffs, who were tenants in the client’s community, brought a civil action in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging the community failed to render cosmetic repairs to the plaintiff’s home, breached certain state statutes, and misrepresented certain aspects of the community and manufactured homes to the plaintiffs. The complaint set forth multiple legal theories of liability, including breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, breach of R.C. 5321.04, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. After the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on all the above theories, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ohio Court of Appeals’ Eighth Appellate District, which affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on each and every claim asserted against the client, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and entitling the community to judgment as a matter of law. As such, the Court of Appeals disposed of all of the plaintiffs’ causes of action against the firm’s client. 

Michael J. Duffy (Partner-Chicago) and Sarah (Sally) Fry Bruch (Of Counsel-Milwaukee, WI) secured a declaratory judgment and dismissal of all claims with prejudice in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on behalf of Wilson Elser’s insurance company client. The plaintiff, a business owner, allegedly sustained damages and business losses during a construction project, filing claims for breach of contract, fraud, and professional negligence against our client (under Wisconsin’s Direct Action Statute) and its insured, a licensed architect.

Mike and Sally, citing long-standing Wisconsin law, argued that there was no initial grant of coverage for the plaintiff’s breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims under the client’s Business Liability Insurance Policy. They further argued that the plaintiff’s professional liability claim was expressly excluded under the plain language of the policy’s Professional Services Exclusion and Endorsement, which excluded coverage for property damage arising out of rendering, or failing to render, any professional service by an insured. Following briefing in support of the motion by Wilson Elser and opposition briefing by plaintiff, and Mike’s compelling oral argument, the Court ruled in favor of Wilson Elser’s client. In its twelve-page Decision and Order, the court concurred that the client’s Business Liability Insurance Policy provided no coverage for the plaintiff’s claims and held that our client had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured in the underlying matter, with all claims against Wilson Elser’s client dismissed with prejudice, and granting the client statutory costs and fees.

Kimberly Blair (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Chicago associates Robert Merlo and Thomas Duff represented the attorney for the wife in a very contentious divorce case; specifically, representing her in post-decree proceedings stemming from the husband’s refusal to turn over significant sums of money, over which he was held in indirect civil contempt and jailed. Subsequently, the husband filed suit against his ex-wife, his former business partner, and his wife’s attorneys (including our client) on allegations of aiding and abetting, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy – suggesting that our client’s conduct was part of a nefarious legal strategy. Kim, Robert, and Thomas were successful at having the matter dismissed with prejudice at the trial court level based on the absolute litigation privilege. An impressive brief written on appeal by Robert and Thomas convinced the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District to affirm the trial court’s decision in an extensive opinion that further solidified the litigation privilege in the State of Illinois.