Ten CGW Attorneys Selected as 2024 Superlawyers!

Costello Ginex & Wideikis has just had ten attorneys recognized by SuperLawyers as top rated Illinois attorneys in 2024 due to their outstanding achievements representing their clients over the past year. Congratulations to all those selected!

Partners Gregory V. Ginex, Dan Costello, and Jim Wideikis (from left), all of whom were selected as SuperLawyers for 2024

2024 Illinois Super Lawyers

Daniel Costello: Construction

Gregory V Ginex: Personal Injury Defense

Jim Wideikis: General Litigation

Michael P Turiello: Civil Litigation (Defense)

2024 Illinois Rising Stars

Ashley Koda: Personal Injury matters

Chloe Polo: Construction

Jessica Biagi: Civil Litigation (Defense)

John Dark: Civil Litigation (Defense)

Shipra Mehta: Personal Injury matters

Brittney Frederick: Transportation

Jessica Biagi and Chloe Polo Honored by JVR for Outstanding Defense Verdict in Premises Case

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

Jim Wideikis Appears on "Legal Face-Off" to Discuss BIPA and its Ramifications for Employers

Matt and Chloe Win Back-to-Back Motions for Summary Judgment on Liability and Contractual Indemnity in Snow Removal Case

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.

John Dark Wins Motion for Summary Judgment After Fire Causes Millions in Damages to Historical Home

2019-L-009251 (Cook County, Illinois)

During the renovation of a large historical home, a fire broke out causing millions of dollars in damages to the home and property. The renovation included the conversion of multiple electric fireplaces into gas fireplaces. The fire was caused during construction when someone remotely turned on the fireplace, which lit flammable material left in front of the fireplace. Plaintiffs sued the general contractor of the construction project. The general contractor then filed third party complaints against the retailer which sold the fireplaces, and the gas company which performed the installation.

The general contractor’s theory against the fireplace seller and the gas company was that they both knew there was ongoing construction so they had a responsibility to warn and instruct the homeowners on the safe use of the fireplace, warn the homeowners not to ignite the fireplace in an ongoing construction zone, to make certain the fireplace pilot-light was extinguished and could not be activated during the construction, and to label the remotes so someone could not unknowingly turn on the fireplace.

John Dark from Costello Ginex and Wideikis took up representation of the fireplace retailer and sought to prove that the retailer did not owe a duty to either the plaintiff or general contractor and any alleged breach was not a proximate cause of the fire. The discovery process was extensive and involved multiple experts hired by the general contractor, including a cause and origin expert and a codes and standard expert.

After discovery, all three defendants filed motions for summary judgment. John argued that his client did not owe a duty to either the plaintiff or to the general contractor, as they did not the install of the fireplace, the instructions provided to the homeowners directly and contained on the invoice were sufficient, and the seller’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the fire. John further argued a condition is distinct from cause, and that the placement of combustible material in front of the fireplace and the subsequent ignition were unforeseeable as to the fireplace seller, as they were unaware of the ongoing construction.

The court granted John’s motion for summary judgment. The court pointed out in their opinion that as a retailer, the fireplace seller was not aware of ongoing construction, was not responsible for installation, and that the general contractor’s own expert did not believe that the retailer violated its duty of care. Meanwhile, the court denied the motions of both of the other defendants.

Shipra Mehta wins Motion for Summary Judgment Defending Construction Manager after Fall at Church

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.

Shipra Mehta and Chloe Polo win Motion Dismissing Pet Store from Frivolous Animal Control Lawsuit

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.

Ashley Earns Complete Defense Verdict after Jury Deliberates for 15 Minutes

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.

Jim Wideikis to Present at Hurricane Recovery Conference March 28th

Jim Wideikis has been selected as a presenter at the Hurricane Recovery Conference in March 28th, at the Englewood Chamber at 601 S. Indiana Ave, Englewood, Florida. Jim will be speaking on three topics: how insurance companies set reserves for losses and the benefits of engaging an attorney early, business interruption insurance and why more companies should utilize it, and the recently enacted Senate Bill 2A, including how it will impact the Florida community with respect to Ian claims and subsequent claims. More information and registration can be found below:

Brittney wins motion to dimsiss on 103B issue concerning lack of diligence of service during the Coronavirus Pandemic

2020-L-001551 (Cook County, Illinois)

Brittney Frederick won a motion to dismiss on a case involving a work injury in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Plaintiff claimed that he and a coworker were packing a truck when the coworker threw a box weighing approximately 100 pounds to him from the loading dock. When Plaintiff caught the box, he suffered a bicep tear requiring surgical treatment. Plaintiff sued his employer as a result. 

Brittney took on the defense of the employer and filed a 103B motion to dismiss alleging that the case was already past the statute of limitations, as twenty-six months had elapsed from the time the lawsuit was filed to the time of service upon her client (including a year in which the case was dismissed for want of prosecution). She argued that plaintiff’s failed attempts at service during this time represented a lack reasonable diligence in service on behalf of the plaintiff. In response, Plaintiff argued that the time frame was diligent in light of the Coronavirus pandemic which impacted plaintiff’s law firm’s ability to obtain service in this case. Brittney argued that the pandemic was no excuse as court systems, law firms, and businesses had all learned to adapt to the pandemic – Plaintiff’s law firm should have been no different. The Court agreed with Brittney and dismissed the case.  

Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, believing the Court failed to adequately weigh the impact of the Covid pandemic when considering the original motion. The motion also brought forward new evidence that the insurance company was on notice of an impending lawsuit. Brittney argued that the Court did adequately take into account the Covid pandemic and that it was improper to bring up new evidence in a motion to reconsider that was not considered at the time of the original motion. The Court agreed, denying the motion to reconsider and again dismissing the case. 

Jessica and Brittney win MSJ in Premises Liability matter on issue of duty to repair a sidewalk

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.

Brittney wins MSJ on Unavoidable Collision Doctrine in multi-car collision on I-355

2020-L-004279 (Cook County, Illinois)

Brittney Frederick won summary judgment on a case involving a multiple vehicle traffic accident on I-355 in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The accident occurred when a sedan weaved in and out of traffic, going up to 80 miles per hour in a construction zone.

The driver attempted to get around the a semi-truck, but mistimed his lane switch, hitting the semi-truck’s wheel and starting a chain reaction. The semi-truck was forced into the next lane, where it collided with a second semi-truck. The impact from that collision forced the second semi-truck into the left lane, where it collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle and pinned him against the concrete median.

The driver who started the chain reaction crash settled for policy limits before suit was filed. Plaintiff then sued the two semi-truck drivers complaining of a variety of injuries, including nerve damage and PTSD from the accident. Brittney Frederick took up the defense of the first semi truck which was initially struck by the at fault driver.

After a long discovery phase, Brittney filed her summary judgment motion, arguing that Plaintiff could not prove proximate cause based on the Unavoidable Collision Doctrine. She argued that even if the client could have done something to prevent the accident, his actions were not a substantial cause of the accident. Only the dismissed defendant could be held legally responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries. The remaining defendants joined onto Brittney’s motion. In response, Plaintiff focused on the fact that the truck drivers did not see the speeding vehicle before it made contact with their trucks was proof of negligence on their part. The Judge disagreed, holding that there was nothing either driver could have done to avoid the subject collision. The judge granted the motion and dismissed Brittney’s client from the case.

Three Defense Verdicts Within Three Months for Jessica Biagi

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. 

CGW Wins MSJ after Plaintiff Voluntarily Stops on Highway Causing Multi-car Collision

Shawn Staples

2018-L-006190 (Cook County, Illinois)

Matt Pierotti and Shawn Staples won summary judgement on a case involving a multiple vehicle traffic accident on I 90/94 in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Plaintiff was a young woman who claimed she stopped and attempted to help Matt and Shawn’s client, who lost control of his car during inclement weather. After Plaintiff stopped her vehicle, she was rear ended twice by two other Defendants on the highway. Plaintiff complained of continuing knee pain from the accident, and underwent surgery. Even after surgery she claimed her pain persisted and secured an expert to opine as to the necessity of future surgery.

Prior to trial, Plaintiff made a settlement demand to all three Defendants totaling $500,000, and just before the trial was scheduled to begin, Plaintiff settled with and dismissed the two other Defendants who had struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. This left Matt and Shawn’s client as the only remaining Defendant.

Matt Pierotti

Matt and Shawn moved for leave to file a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the posture of the case was significantly altered by the dismissal of the two other Defendants. Matt and Shawn argued that even accepting Plaintiff’s factual account as completely accurate, their client’s actions could not have been a proximate cause Plaintiff’s injuries as their client never touched Plaintiff’s vehicle. Their client simply caused the condition by which Plaintiff was injured: and based upon binding precedent from the Illinois Supreme Court, only the dismissed Defendants could be held legally responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries. While Plaintiff argued that there were still issues of fact to be considered by a jury, the Judge held otherwise. “In short, [Plaintiff] cannot establish proximate causation because her action in pulling over and stopping in the lane of the expressway to render aid was not something [The Defendant] could have reasonably foreseen or anticipated, rendering the injuries she suffered from the collisions by the dismissed Defendants themselves unforeseeable.”

Matt and Shawn were thrilled with this result for their client, which avoided the additional time and expense of trial.

Jessica and Chloe Earn Full Defense Verdict for Soccer Facility despite $2.8 Million Demand at Trial

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.

Jessica Wins Another Defense Verdict in Defense of Soccer Facility Following $2.8 Million Demand

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.