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.

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. 

Costello Legal Wins Motion on Slip & Fall in Chicago Grocery Store Parking Lot

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.

Illinois Passes New Snow Removal Bill- What Does It Mean For You?

Illinois has just passed the Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act (Public Act 099-0889), which applies immediately to any contracts entered into on or after August 25, 2016. This bill affects certain clauses in contracts between snow and ice removal providers and any party they contract with (usually property owners/managers) for snow and ice removal. Any clauses that contain indemnification, duty to defend and hold harmless language are now void, unenforceable and against public policy. This is similar to legislation in the construction industry where there is an anti-indemnification statute based on public policy. The idea being that those in power, property managers/owners should not be able to shift their risk to snow removal contractors. The snow and ice removal company cannot be required to indemnify, hold harmless or defend the property manager/owner and vice versa. Instead, liability is to be apportioned based on each party's proportionate negligence.

This means that the parties can no longer go after each other for indemnification and defense costs when the party initiating the action for indemnification or defense costs was negligent themselves, and that negligence led to some type of injury. Some likely effects of this act will be:

• 1) Impacting insurance rates for snow removal companies and property owners (overall, good for snow removal companies, bad for the property owners/managers who used to include these kinds of provisions)

• 2) Alleviating insurance carriers' concerns about contract language

• 3) Increasing the value of professional snow and ice management services as property owners will want a good service since they cannot pass on their liability onto the removal service anymore.

The importance of the act should be significant to snow removal contractors. With this change, contractors will be on the hook for only for their negligence, and not that of those who hired them. It will also vastly impact the insurer of these contractors. It will help to take frivolous lawsuits to trial which would otherwise settle due to the costs of litigation both on behalf of its named insured, but also on behalf of additional insureds. For those on the property management or ownership side, the risks associated with slip and fall cases has increased, and a key tool in risk transfer has been eliminated. We expect that the early cases will test the validity of the statute, and breach of contract claims.

Link to the Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=099-0889