APPEALS
APPEALS
What Sets Us Apart
Our attorneys handle appeals in state and federal courts. Our appellate practice has successfully handled appeals involving coverage questions, including misrepresentations, arson and insured’s post-loss duties.
What Sets Us Apart
Our attorneys handle appeals in state and federal courts. Our appellate practice has successfully handled appeals involving coverage questions, including misrepresentations, arson and insured’s post-loss duties.
Results
We obtained summary judgment under Section 3-420 against a mortgagee after our client’s draft was fraudulently negotiated by a contractor to deprive the mortgagee of its interest in the draft. The Appellate Court affirmed the ruling.
We obtained a reversal of a judgment entered against our client when the trial court wrongfully added a pre-suit notice requirement into the replevin act.
The Appellate Court affirmed our win in the trial court, holding that the common law defense of “innocent insured” is trumped by policy language.
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court agreed policy language controls the question of whether a misrepresentation under one coverage part voids coverage for the entire loss.
The Trial Court dismissed a $19 million lawsuit against our client pursuant to the Moorman Doctrine. The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal.
The Appellate Court reinstated a jury verdict we received holding that material misrepresentation by an insured removes any obligation for the insurer to cover a loss.
Our client’s alleged awareness of mold before a loss did not overcome the policy’s exclusion of losses caused by mold. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in our favor.
We obtained dismissal of numerous cases in the Appellate Court, short of rulings due to procedural defects (i.e. lack of jurisdiction, untimeliness).
Results
We obtained summary judgment under Section 3-420 against a mortgagee after our client’s draft was fraudulently negotiated by a contractor to deprive the mortgagee of its interest in the draft. The Appellate Court affirmed the ruling.
We obtained a reversal of a judgment entered against our client when the trial court wrongfully added a pre-suit notice requirement into the replevin act.
The Appellate Court affirmed our win in the trial court, holding that the common law defense of “innocent insured” is trumped by policy language.
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court agreed policy language controls the question of whether a misrepresentation under one coverage part voids coverage for the entire loss.
The Trial Court dismissed a $19 million lawsuit against our client pursuant to the Moorman Doctrine. The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal.
The Appellate Court reinstated a jury verdict we received holding that material misrepresentation by an insured removes any obligation for the insurer to cover a loss.
Our client’s alleged awareness of mold before a loss did not overcome the policy’s exclusion of losses caused by mold. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in our favor.
We obtained dismissal of numerous cases in the Appellate Court, short of rulings due to procedural defects (i.e. lack of jurisdiction, untimeliness).
Most Common Question
How do you persuade the Appellate Court to reverse the trial court?
Answer
By diligently reviewing the trial record and focusing on the law.
Most Common Question
How do you persuade the Appellate Court to reverse the trial court?
Answer
By diligently reviewing the trial record and focusing on the law.