Specialty Lines Advisory

Get the latest Professional Liability news and additional Employment law updates from Tressler’s experienced attorneys.

Subscribe via RSS
Visit Blog
By: Tressler LLP

Blog Authors

Bicvan Brown
Robert Crowder
Daniel Formeller
douglas j. pahl
Tressler LLP
william mcvisk
jennifer perdigao
yvonne schulte
jennifer smith

Latest from Specialty Lines Advisory

On March 25, 2021, the Illinois Legislature passed SB 72, which, if not vetoed, will establish prejudgment interest at a 6% annual rate on personal injury actions in Illinois. As passed, the bill would:

  • Set the prejudgment interest rate at 6% annually.  As with all Illinois prejudgment and post-judgment interest, the rate is simple interest and not compounded.
  • The prejudgment interest will only apply to compensatory damages.  It will not apply to punitive damages, statutory attorneys’ fees, or costs.
  • The interest will run from the date the complaint is filed.
  • Interest will be cut off after 5 years, so the

…
Continue Reading Illinois Legislature Passes SB 72, Establishing Prejudgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, in Austin
Highlands Development Company v. Midwest Insurance Agency, Inc., 2020 Ill. App. (1st) 191125,
decided two issues important to insurance producers in Illinois.

  • The two-year statute of limitations applies to
    both agents and brokers.
  • The two-year statute of limitations begins to accrue
    on the date the insurance policy is delivered to the policyholder.

Midwest Insurance Agency (“Midwest”) was the exclusive agent to procure insurance policies for Austin Highlands Development Company (“Austin”), who acted as agent for various entities that owned apartment complexes in the Chicagoland area. In that role, Midwest procured…
Continue Reading The Two-Year Statute of Limitations for Actions Against Insurance Producers in Illinois Begins to Run on the Date the Policy Is Received by the Policyholder

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District recently ruled that Illinois’ personal jurisdiction precedent was not overruled by recent decisions made by the United States Supreme Court. Schaefer v. Synergy Flight Center, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 181779 (1st… Continue Reading →
The post Illinois Court Holds Texas Company is Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois, and that Illinois Personal Jurisdiction Precedent is not Overruled by Recent Company-Friendly United States Supreme Court Decisions appeared first on Specialty Lines Advisory.
Continue Reading Illinois Court Holds Texas Company is Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois, and that Illinois Personal Jurisdiction Precedent is not Overruled by Recent Company-Friendly United States Supreme Court Decisions

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District recently ruled that Illinois’ personal jurisdiction precedent was not overruled by recent decisions made by the United States Supreme Court. Schaefer v. Synergy Flight Center, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 181779 (1st Dist. 2019). Specifically, the appellate court ruled that the 2013 Illinois Supreme Court case of Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909 (2013), which held that Illinois had personal jurisdiction over a French company whose parts were in an air ambulance helicopter that crashed in Illinois and killed the pilot, was not overruled by the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case of…
Continue Reading Illinois Court Holds Texas Company is Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois, and that Illinois Personal Jurisdiction Precedent is not Overruled by Recent Company-Friendly United States Supreme Court Decisions

The lower Court in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (9th Cir. 17-16096 5/2/19) had rendered a decision in a decade-old class action. Subsequently, last year in April 2018, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (SC S222732 4/30/18). The landmark Dynamex decision severely limited businesses’ classification of an independent contractor in the California wage and hour context.
On May 2, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Vazquez et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. strengthened the Dynamex decision by applying it retroactively. This makes it more difficult for businesses…
Continue Reading Employees vs. Independent Contractors – More Bad News for California Businesses: Dynamex Strengthened and Retroactively Applied

The lower Court in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (9th Cir. 17-16096 5/2/19) had rendered a decision in a decade-old class action. Subsequently, last year in April 2018, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court… Continue Reading →
The post Employees vs. Independent Contractors – More Bad News for California Businesses: Dynamex Strengthened and Retroactively Applied appeared first on Specialty Lines Advisory.
Continue Reading Employees vs. Independent Contractors – More Bad News for California Businesses: Dynamex Strengthened and Retroactively Applied

Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, et al. (SC S238941 2/7/19). The California Supreme Court has recently decided that a payroll company cannot be held liable to an employee for breach of contract and negligence in calculating wages. The existing law is… Continue Reading →
The post In Addition to No Wage and Hour Liability Against Payroll Provider, Now No Contract and Negligence Liability appeared first on Specialty Lines Advisory.
Continue Reading In Addition to No Wage and Hour Liability Against Payroll Provider, Now No Contract and Negligence Liability

Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, et al. (SC S238941 2/7/19).
The California Supreme Court has recently decided that a payroll company cannot be held liable to an employee for breach of contract and negligence in calculating wages.
The existing law is that a payroll company cannot be considered an employer for purposes of liability for California wage claims as well as Federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419. Goonewardene expanded this protection to exclude liability for breach of contract and negligence claims brought directly by employees against payroll companies.
The employer (Altour)…
Continue Reading In Addition to No Wage and Hour Liability Against Payroll Provider, Now No Contract and Negligence Liability

On September 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s lead by enforcing class action waivers in arbitration agreements. This a significant win for employers, and Uber in particular.
Uber drivers filed class action suits alleging that Uber and related defendants violated various federal and state laws including 1.) misclassifying drivers as independent contractors (rather than employees) 2.) failing to remit the entire gratuity paid by customers to drivers (California Labor Code § 351), and 3.) failing to pay the drivers’ business expenses, including vehicles, gas, and maintenance (California Labor Code…
Continue Reading Courts Continue to Enforce Arbitration Agreements

On September 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s lead by enforcing class action waivers in arbitration agreements. This a significant win for employers, and Uber in particular. Uber drivers… Continue Reading →
The post Courts Continue to Enforce Arbitration Agreements appeared first on Specialty Lines Advisory.
Continue Reading Courts Continue to Enforce Arbitration Agreements

Jennifer Perdigao is a partner in Tressler’s insurance practice. Her practice includes insurance coverage and defense as well as non-insurance advisory matters. Jennifer’s insurance coverage experience includes insurance coverage analysis and insurance litigation involving commercial general liability, aviation operations, personal and… Continue Reading →
The post Attorney Spotlight: Jennifer Perdigao appeared first on Specialty Lines Advisory.
Continue Reading Attorney Spotlight: Jennifer Perdigao

https-www-specialtylinesadvisory-com-wp-content-uploads-2018-07-jennifer-perdigao-and-mackenzie-300x230-png

Jennifer Perdigao is a partner in Tressler’s insurance practice. Her practice includes insurance coverage and defense as well as non-insurance advisory matters. Jennifer’s insurance coverage experience includes insurance coverage analysis and insurance litigation involving commercial general liability, aviation operations, personal and advertising injury, construction defects, environmental coverage, and professional lines. Jennifer’s defense litigation experience involves a wide range of matters including the defense of wrongful death, personal injury and property damage claims arising out of premises, aviation accidents, airport operations, motor vehicle accidents and products liability.
Outside of her legal career, Jennifer is a licensed pilot and enjoys helping young women…
Continue Reading Attorney Spotlight: Jennifer Perdigao

On December 12, 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board met to present its findings and proposed recommendations related to the sinking of the U.S. cargo ship El Faro.
The 790-foot El Faro sank about 40 nautical miles northeast of Acklins and Crooked Island, Bahamas, on October 1, 2015 while en route from Jacksonville, Florida to San Juan, Puerto Rico.  The sinking claimed the lives of all 33 people on the ship, making it the “deadliest shipping disaster involving a U.S.-flagged vessel in more than 30 years.” [i]
The disappearance of the El Faro as it neared the eyewall of Hurricane…
Continue Reading The Sinking of El Faro

United Airlines recently prevailed on a False Imprisonment claim involving a passenger who refused to leave the United Club Departure lounge in Cooper v. United Airlines, Inc., 2017 WL 3278924 (S.D.N.Y. August 1, 2017).  The Plaintiff was returning from Kenya to Newark via Heathrow. Her flight into Heathrow on Ethiopian Airlines was late and she missed her connecting flight to Newark.  Plaintiff proceeded to the United Club Departure lounge. United employees had already left for the day and employees from Sedexo were operating the lounge.  Sedexo employees advised Plaintiff that she had to return to Ethiopian Airlines to rebook her…
Continue Reading It’s Not False Imprisonment if Plaintiff Refuses to Leave

United Airlines recently prevailed on a False Imprisonment claim involving a passenger who refused to leave the United Club Departure lounge in Cooper v. United Airlines, Inc., 2017 WL 3278924 (S.D.N.Y. August 1, 2017).  The Plaintiff was returning from Kenya… Continue Reading →
The post It’s Not False Imprisonment if Plaintiff Refuses to Leave appeared first on Specialty Lines Advisory.
Continue Reading It’s Not False Imprisonment if Plaintiff Refuses to Leave