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.

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.

Arbitration Win in Suspected Staged Car Crash

2018-M1-300927 (Illinois, Cook County)

A truck driver driving a Mack truck with a dumpster on back was on his way to a drop-off when a car passed him and abruptly swerved in front of his truck in the middle of traffic. Despite trying to slow down, the truck still hit the car, rear ending him but not causing significant damage. There were three passengers in the car, who called the police, whereupon they all began complaining of various pains and injuries, and eventually sued the trucking company.

The defense of the case for the trucking company was handed to Costello Legal, and based on the facts the crash appeared to be a staged fraudulent crash. Ultimately the case went to mandatory arbitration, where Matt Pierotti handled the case for Costello Legal. Despite the fact that the truck rear ended the plaintiffs, Matt convinced the arbitration panel that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver and was able to secure a full defense verdict.