We are happy to announce that we're celebrating 30 years! →

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

In a recent case, a woman and her two children were injured in a car accident with another motorist. The woman filed a lawsuit against the other driver for their injuries. More than three years after the car accident, the woman amended her complaint to add a claim against her insurance company, since she believed that the other driver’s policy would not fully cover her damages.

The insurance company’s policy required claims to be filed within three years of the accident, so the insurance company argued that the claim was barred because it was filed after more than three years. The woman put the insurance company on notice about two years after the accident that she would likely pursue an underinsured motorist claim. Yet she did not file it until later, when she believed the other driver’s policy would be insufficient after pursuing the lawsuit against the driver.

In a recently released opinion, the state’s supreme court held that the claim was not barred. It explained that while the insurance company’s policy required lawsuits to be filed within three years, the insurance company also had a policy that it would only pay if the underinsured motorist’s insurance had been exhausted. Therefore, insured individuals were being told to file a lawsuit within three years, but at the same time they were being told not to file a lawsuit until other avenues were exhausted. The court explained that these two policies were in direct conflict with each other, and thus the policy was ambiguous. As a result, the court interpreted the terms in favor of the insured, allowing the case to continue against the insurance company.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Monsanto is a major chemical producer that primarily provides chemical inputs to farmers and other agricultural operations. One of its most common products that can even be found in some urban dwellers’ pantries is Roundup, a chemical used to kill certain weeds. The main ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate. This chemical is applied to genetically modified crops that are engineered to withstand Roundup, allowing the chemical to kill other weeds and unwanted plants.

According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In response to many of these claims and other criticism over glyphosate’s allegedly harmful attributes, Monsanto insists that Roundup is “safe enough to drink.” In 2015, Monsanto reported receiving $4.8 billion in sales from Roundup alone.

A recent lawsuit is challenging Monsanto’s claims regarding Roundup’s safety. According to four farmers from Nebraska, the chemical has caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This disease is a form of cancer that originates in the lymphocytes that comprise a part of the body’s immune system. These lymph nodes and other lymphatic tissue like the spleen and bone marrow are a vital part of the body and can act as a conduit to spread cancer cells elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Monsanto es un importante productor químico que principalmente proporciona insumos químicos a los agricultores y otras operaciones agrícolas. Uno de sus productos más comunes que incluso se puede encontrar en las despensas de algunos habitantes urbanos es Roundup, un producto químico usado para matar ciertas malas hierbas. El principal ingrediente de Roundup es el glifosato. Este producto químico se aplica a los cultivos modificados genéticamente que son diseñados para soportar Roundup, permitiendo que el producto mate a otras hierbas malas y plantas indeseables.

Según la Agencia Internacional para la Investigación del Cáncer de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el glifosato es “probablemente cancerígeno para los seres humanos.” En respuesta a muchas de estas afirmaciones y otras críticas sobre los atributos supuestamente dañinos del glifosato, Monsanto insiste en que Roundup es “suficientemente seguro para beber.” En 2015, Monsanto reportó recibir $ 4.8 mil millones únicamente en ventas de Roundup.

Una demanda reciente está desafiando las afirmaciones de Monsanto sobre la seguridad de Roundup. Según cuatro agricultores de Nebraska, el producto químico les ha causado el desarrollo de linfoma tipo no Hodgkins. Esta enfermedad es una forma de cáncer que se origina en los linfocitos que forman parte del sistema inmunológico del cuerpo. Estos ganglios linfáticos y otros tejidos linfáticos como el bazo y la médula ósea son una parte vital del cuerpo y pueden actuar como un conducto para propagar las células cancerosas a otros lugares.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Settlements can be an effective and beneficial way for both parties to resolve a case without having to go through a trial. However, some settlements can be thrown out if they are not approved by a judge, causing the litigation process to continue.

Personal Injury Settlements in Illinois

Although a plaintiff has the freedom to decide whether or not to file a claim, once a claim is filed in Illinois, the plaintiff does not always have the freedom to voluntarily dismiss a case. Some claims, such as class actions and claims by minors, may require court approval.

In Illinois, an approved settlement generally results in a voluntary dismissal of the case for the plaintiff. Generally, such a dismissal is taken “with prejudice,” which means that the claim cannot be brought again. In addition, the court that granted the dismissal generally retains jurisdiction of the case to enforce the terms of the settlement. Finally, it is important to note that if a claim is settled, normally it cannot later be challenged unless there was a mistake or fraud.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a woman filed suit against a hospital and her doctor for battery after undergoing a medical procedure. She alleged that she had not given her informed consent for having an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted. About a year after she had the IUD implanted, she found out that her IUD had not been approved by the Federal Drug Administration because of the location to which the device had been shipped.

She filed the complaint but failed to file a medical expert affidavit, as required by state laws. In this particular state, the law required that plaintiffs filing medical malpractice actions file an expert affidavit along with the complaint. However, the woman argued that her claim did not require her to file the expert affidavit because this was a battery claim rather than a medical malpractice claim. Ultimately, the state’s supreme court disagreed, holding that a battery claim against a medical provider based on a lack of informed consent also requires the filing of a medical expert affidavit.

The court held that even though the claim filed was a battery claim, it still had the same requirements of a general medical malpractice claim. Since cases involving the issue of informed consent generally consider the professional standard required in such cases, they are subject to the same requirements no matter which claim is alleged. There is a question of what the professional standard is in obtaining informed consent. As a result, a medical expert affidavit was required, stating that the expert supports the allegations in the claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, many reports have amassed indicating that consumers in Hawaii have become seriously ill as a result of coming into contact with Hepatitis A. One resident in Oahu dined at a sushi establishment called Genki Sushi Restaurant. The man has filed a lawsuit against the restaurant and a supplier, Koha Foods, which provided imported scallops to the sushi restaurant. According to some reports, these scallops are believed to be the source of the Hepatitis A outbreak. Nearly 170 people have fallen ill with the disease, requiring over 45 hospitalizations starting in June 2016. Although the overwhelming majority of these cases are on Oahu, some of them have also occurred on Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii. Many tourists visiting Hawaii became ill during their stay and then traveled to other locations.

The State of Hawaii has put an embargo on the scallops and any distributors that use them. There are some 10 restaurants in the Genki Sushi chain that may be providing and serving the infected scallops. The scallops were diced and served raw with mayonnaise alongside a rice ball that was wrapped in seaweed. At these sushi restaurants, the fare was served on a conveyor belt, and customers then pull the items off the conveyor belt as they travel past them.

Hepatitis A is a contagious virus that targets the liver and can cause serious illnesses and complications. Typically, Hepatitis A spreads through contaminated food or drinks or when the victim comes into close contact with someone who is a carrier of the virus. The symptoms giving signs that an individual has contracted the disease may not manifest for several weeks after the individual has been exposed. These symptoms often include nausea, fatigue, stomach pain, joint pain, jaundice, and dark urine.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a woman had surgery done at a hospital and subsequently suffered a stroke. The woman filed a products liability claim against the manufacturer of one of the medical devices in the surgery. However, when the complaint was originally filed, it did not name the hospital or the doctor as defendants. It also did not state a claim for medical malpractice. Several months later, the woman requested to file an amended complaint to add the defendants and allege medical malpractice. She then filed the amended complaint almost four months after the original complaint.

The hospital and the doctor then moved for summary judgment, alleging that the filings were untimely. In the jurisdiction where the case arose, a medical malpractice action must be filed within two years of the cause of action accruing. The original complaint was filed just one day before the two-year statute of limitations had run. Thus, by the time the woman amended the complaint, the new claim against the defendants was not timely. The court granted the defendants’ motions because the claims were filed against them after the statute of limitations had expired. The state supreme court agreed, resulting in the dismissal of the claim.

Amending a Complaint and Its Effect on the Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is the time period during which a plaintiff can bring a certain kind of claim. The period of time varies depending on the type of claim and the jurisdiction, or the place in which it is filed. Often, the time begins to run from the date of the injury, the date that an injury was discovered, or the date that it should have been discovered.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the most horrific events that can happen to a community is chemical dumping or other toxic spills. Once a dangerous chemical is released into the environment, it can have irreversible and devastating impacts that can lead to serious health consequences or even death. Recently, a plaintiff from West Virginia was awarded $5.1 million in a lawsuit alleging that major international chemical maker DuPont acted recklessly when it dumped toxic waste into waterways in the state. The plaintiff, a 56-year-old man, suffered testicular cancer as a result of coming into contact with C-8, a chemical agent that DuPont uses in manufacturing Teflon.

Filed in October 2013, the lawsuit alleges that DuPont released waste material containing C-8 from its Washington Works Plant located in Wood County “directly into the air, the Ohio River, and unlined non-hazardous waste landfills in the vicinity of the plant and local drinking wells.” The lawsuit also claims that DuPont knew the substances would contaminate the surface waters and the subterranean waters.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a man’s decision to forego optional safety equipment later prevented compensation for his injuries. The man was riding his lawn mower when the mower fell off the edge of an embankment and rolled on top of him. He was trapped under the lawn mower, and tragically he died from suffocation. The man’s wife alleged that the lawn mower manufacturer was negligent because the machine did not come with a rollover protection system. However, the defendant pointed out that the man had the option of adding the rollover protection system when he bought the lawn mower, which he neglected to purchase.

A federal appeals court dismissed the plaintiff’s case, holding that, according to the optional equipment doctrine, a manufacturer generally will not be found negligent if a purchaser had the option of buying safety equipment that would have prevented the accident. The court explained that the doctrine may apply where a buyer is knowledgeable regarding the product’s use and the availability of the safety feature, there are normal circumstances in which the product without the optional equipment would not be unreasonably dangerous, and the buyer can balance the risks and benefits with regard to the buyer’s use of the product. Since the rollover protection system was an option when the man bought the lawn mower, the manufacturer could not be held negligent for failing to install the equipment.

The Optional Equipment Doctrine in Illinois

The optional equipment doctrine arises in the context of negligence in manufacturing. It is not exactly a defense, but instead it is a way a defendant can show that it fulfilled its duty to the purchaser. That is, the defendant, by informing buyers that an optional feature is available and can make the product safer for certain users, may have satisfied its duty to make a product safe.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A nine-year-old boy in Maine has become seriously ill as a result of consuming ground beef contaminated with E. Coli O157:H7. The boy’s mother purchased PT Farm beef sometime in June 2016 and prepared it to serve to her family. Roughly five days after the family ate the meat, the boy began exhibiting signs of a serious illness. Common symptoms associated with E. Coli infections are diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. After the boy’s symptoms did not improve, his mother took him to the hospital, where he was admitted for several days.

The child is only one of about 14 individuals who have become ill as a result of consuming contaminated beef from PT Farm. The victims are located in a wide swath of states, including Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The illnesses have been recorded as occurring between June 15 and July 10, 2016.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service, along with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, have been actively involved in investigating the source of the outbreak. On July 26, the public entities announced that they had identified E. Coli in raw beef provided by PT Farm. They initiated a recall that covered some 8,800 pounds of the raw beef. Some of the brand names under which PT Farms beef is sold include Chestnut Farms, Robie Farm, Miles Smith Farm, and PT Farm. Some of the product may come frozen.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
T 312.462.1700F 312.756.0045E info@molllawgroup.com
We represent people nationwide including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas–Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Bernardino-Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa–St. Petersburg, and Washington, D.C.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design