Chloe Polo Wins MSJ in Toxic Exposure Case

Chloe Polo, Associate Attorney

2023-L-1220 (Cook County)

Plaintiff filed suit against her landlord alleging that she sustained a variety of ailments which allegedly arose due to poor maintenance of the rental unit. Plaintiff’s claims included allegations that the landlord failed to maintain a hot water heater resulting in an alleged exposure to carbon monoxide and allowed lead paint to exist on the premises.

CGW took up defense of the landlord, which became the subject of years of litigation including plaintiff voluntarily dismissing their case and re-filing it. The case underwent many rounds of depositions, including the plaintiff consulting with a toxicologist who found that there was no evidence of any recent toxic exposure.

At the conclusion of discovery, Chloe Polo filed a motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish a proximate causation between the landlord’s alleged acts and plaintiff’s own injuries. Chloe argued that Plaintiff failed to provide any qualified testimony from her treating physicians or experts to causally link her ailments to a toxic exposure while residing in the apartment. She further argued that there was not even enough evidence to support a toxic exposure period. There was no evidence that the hot water heater was leaking carbon monoxide and no evidence of any other potential toxic exposure in the apartment. Ultimately, despite the many depositions and experts, Chloe pointed out that the only evidence plaintiff provided to support her claims linking the defendant’s actions to the plaintiff’s injuries was her own testimony.

Despite the fact that Cook County judges are known for their reluctance to grant motions for summary judgment, the judge reviewed the medical and expert testimony and ultimately agreed with Chloe and granted her motion. He agreed that none of the medical doctors or other people that Plaintiff consulted with offered an opinion regarding a toxic exposure.

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

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.

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.

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.

Shipra and Chloe win Motion for Summary Judgment in Inflatable Slide Case

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.