A student’s lawsuit against Lindenwood University alleging he was injured when he fell from a bunk bed in his dorm room has been dismissed after the parties reached an undisclosed settlement.

On March 8, District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel entered an order stating that the parties had reached an undisclosed settlement, but allowed them an additional 60 days to finalize the settlement documents.

The case was officially dismissed with prejudice on May 15. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, unless otherwise provided in the settlement documents.

Plaintiff Javid Hashimzade was represented by Marc Parker of Parker Law PC in Maryville.

Defendant Lindenwood Female College Inc., doing business as Lindenwood University, was represented by Melissa Null.

Hashimzade filed the complaint on July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, alleging he was a student at the University of Lindenwood and was residing in one of the school’s dorm rooms.

As he was sleeping on Oct. 1, 2014, he alleged he fell onto the floor from the top bunk of a bunk bed provided by the school, the suit stated.

As a result, he claimed he injured his left wrist, eye, nose and face.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to provide guard rails for the top bunk bed, failed to inform him that guard rails could be obtained and prohibited the separation of the bunk bed so that neither student was required to sleep on the top bunk.

Lindenwood answered the complaint on Aug. 30, arguing that Hashimzade’s alleged injuries were caused by his own failure to exercise due care for his safety.

Lindenwood claimed the plaintiff negligently failed to request guard rails if guard rails were not present, used the bed without guard rails even though it was open and obvious that guardrails were not present, slept in a bed when he knew or should have known it presented some danger to him and was otherwise careless.

Hashimzade sought a judgment of more than $75,000 and court costs.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:16-cv-742

St. Clair County Associate Judge Chris Kolker denied the Blake Behme Law Group’s motion to dismiss a former client’s $1.15 million legal malpractice suit, in which they argued that she agreed to a divorce settlement on her own after her attorneys advised against it.

Plaintiff Bobbi Jo Fults filed her complaint on Nov. 22 against Edward J. Blake Jr., Megan M. Gilbreth and the Blake Behme Law Group PC.

Fults married and divorced Kenneth J. Fults four times. During the fourth divorce, Fults retained the defendants as counsel. She claims she lost at least $1 million for her share in the couple’s marital property.

She also alleges she sustained attorneys’ fees in excess of $50,000 and suffered emotional distress worth more than $100,000.

Fults alleges the defendants failed to protect her interest, failed to discover all the marital property that should have been included in the property settlement and abandoned her on the hearing date of Nov. 23, 2015.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 28 through attorneys Richard Korn and Margaret Gentzen of Fox Galvin LLC in St. Louis.

They argued that they withdrew from their representation on Nov. 23, 2015, but Fults continued to enter into her 2015 Marriage Property Settlement Agreement with her ex-husband against the previous advice of the defendants.

Kolker denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on April 18.

“While a Motion for Summary judgment may show the case cannot succeed, there are alleged facts regarding discovery that may present a legal cause of action. Nothing in this Order should preclude Defendants from later presenting any of the arguments in the instant motion to dismiss,” he wrote.

Fults filed an amended complaint on Feb. 21 through attorney David M. Duree of O’Fallon.

On April 27, the defendants answered the amended complaint, arguing that Fults consented to the defendants’ withdrawal prior to her voluntary marital settlement. As a result, they claim they owe her no duty.

“Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law because defendants were ethically required to withdraw from representation of plaintiff under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to Rule 3.3,” the affirmative defenses state. “In particular, Defendants obtained further information that plaintiff and her former husband, Kenneth Fults, Jr., were in (sic) engaging in settlement discussions ‘under the table’ and without the input of Defendants.”

They add that the plaintiff agreed to settlement terms that were different than what was represented to the court at the Nov. 23, 2015, hearing.

They also argue that the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is barred by the voluntary payment doctrine.

“Plaintiff received, reviewed and paid Defendants’ monthly itemized bills for professional legal services, including but not limited to the Defendants’ ‘final bill,’ receiving, reviewing and paying the same in full prior to the Defendants’ withdrawal as her counsel and Plaintiff’s voluntarily going forward with the prove-up of the Marital Settlement Agreement,” the affirmative defenses state.

Fults answered the defendants’ affirmative defenses on May 4, denying each and every allegation.

She also argues that each of the defenses fail to state a recognizable affirmative defense.

The case has been set for trial for Jan. 22, 2018.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-627

ST. LOUIS - Legal experts following the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder lawsuits in St. Louis say that even in the face of Monday’s declared mistrial of one of the cases on jurisdictional grounds, many of the hundreds of other cases will drag on “because so much money is involved.”

At the same time, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for plaintiffs’ attorneys to show the connection to the jurisdiction required under three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions - most recently where Justices in an 8-1 ruling rejected on jurisdictional grounds a California-based action against Bristol-Myers Squibb, which manufacturers the blood thinner Plavix. Bristol-Myers Squibb is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York.  

That ruling prompted 22nd Circuit Judge Rex Burlison on Monday to declare a mistrial in the Swann v. Johnson & Johnson case that had been under way for a little more than a week.

“In the Squibb case brought in California, even the presence of a Squibb research facility there wasn’t enough for the Supreme Court to show that the state court had jurisdiction,” said professor Michael Wolff at Saint Louis University Law School.

Rather, Wolff and others say the plaintiffs’ attorneys will have to show, in amended pleadings - almost certain to follow - that the plaintiffs are from Missouri (only one of the three in the case before Judge Burlison is), that the product causing the alleged injury was purchased in Missouri, or that the company is headquartered or incorporated there.

Based on comments to other news outlets, the plaintiffs’ firm, Alabama-based Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, is expected to center its jurisdictional arguments around the fact that J&J uses a Missouri-based company to package some of its talc products.

Lawyers for J&J meanwhile have said that the Missouri-based packaging company is a contractor, an association that should play no role in establishing a court’s jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs.

The J&J lawyers, moreover, are almost certain to point to Monday’s mistrial declaration as the reason an appeals court should toss five cases the company lost in a lower court.

"We believe the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Bristol-Myers Squibb matter requires reversal of the talc cases that are currently under appeal in St. Louis," J&J said in a statement.

Monday’s declaration of the mistrial was quickly hailed as a victory by the business community, which has long fought against venue shopping where plaintiffs’ attorneys file actions in jurisdictions known for being disproportionately friendly to plaintiffs.

“We had a package of tort reform bills that were recently approved by the legislature,” said Dan Mehan, President/CEO, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “Those legislative victories and this mistrial show that the attitudes are really changing for the better in Missouri.”

Last December, the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) ranked St. Louis city’s court system number one among its annual listing of “Judicial Hellholes.”

“There’s no amount of additional discovery or depositions that can overcome Justice Samuel Alito’s rather straightforward majority decision (in the Squibb case),” ATRA said in a statement. “Non-Missouri residents will have to file their scientifically groundless talc claims in their home states or where the defendants are incorporated or headquartered.”

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court, in another 8-1 ruling, (this one involving BNSF Railway Co.) found that a state court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation only when their “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” The places where a business is “at home” are the corporation’s place of incorporation and its principal place of business (if different).

SPRINGFIELD – Legislation introduced that would require state agencies in Illinois to enforce environmental standards adopted under the Obama Administration, if those standards are rolled back under Trump is nearly identical to one advancing in the California legislature.

The Illinois bill, HB 1438, co-sponsored by Rep. Katie Stuart (D-Collinsville), is nearly identical to one that cleared the California Senate with a substantial majority in late May. California’s SB 49 could reach the floor in the Assembly by late September.

Business officials say the bills are loaded with concerns, including private rights of action, added costs to taxpayers for new hires needed at state agencies, and vague language open to numerous interpretations.

The Illinois bill currently sits in the House Environmental Committee awaiting action on a second amendment to the bill.

A policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce warns that if the proposal is adopted in her state, dire consequences could result.

“Two things we need are affordable housing and water in California,” said Louinda Lacey, policy advocate for California Chamber of Commerce. “Both will become more scarce if this legislation is approved.”

An analysis of the bill written by a coalition of business, real estate and agricultural groups working to stop the California legislation says that at its core SB 49 would require the state agencies to adopt standards that are “at least as stringent as” the baseline federal standards in the federal Clean Air Act, the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal Water Pollution Control Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, and “other federal laws” defined as unidentified laws “relating to environmental protection, natural resources, or public health.” The bill would also prohibit a state agency from amending or revising its rules or regulations in a manner less “stringent” in its protection of workers’ rights or worker safety than standards established pursuant to federal law in existence as of January 1, 2016.

Incorporating over 70 endangered species, including some insects, by the state agencies will alone require hundreds of extra hires.

“California agencies are not equipped with the manpower to handle all of these extra responsibilities,” Lacey said.

What’s more, the legislation allows for private rights of action against the state agencies and businesses, with one-way attorney fee provisions attached.

“The one-way attorney fee provision carries with it a huge incentive to bring action,” said Laura Brown, director of Government Affairs, California Citrus Mutual. “You’ll see an explosion of new cases.”

On the agency side, the legislation would authorize a person to petition a court for a writ of mandate to compel a state or local agency to comply with the adoption of the Obama-era standards.

On the business side, it would grant private rights of action against businesses not meeting Obama-era standards taking litigation in the state well “beyond the status quo,” according to the coalition analysis.

“The uncertainty created by the vague, broad, and ambiguous language in the bill would further negatively impact a business’ growth, employment, and investment decisions,” the analysis says.

The private right of action is similar to one allowed under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), said Peggy Otum, partner at Arnold & Porter in San Francisco.

“California has a culture of getting everyone involved in environmental enforcement,” she said. “A California district attorney, for instance, can bring prosecute a business if the violation of some environmental standard gives it an unfair competitive advantage.”

Opponents of the bill are working with even the most progressive Assembly members to keep it bottled up there.

“The extra cost to the agencies with the passage of this legislation should be a disincentive to anyone to vote for it,” Lacey said.

Meanwhile, in Illinois the regular legislative session has ended for the year, but business officials there expect the pre-emptive environmental legislation to be back in January when session begins again.

A jury trial has been scheduled for next April in a medical malpractice lawsuit against Apex Physical, in which the therapy center disputes a patient’s claims that she fractured her foot during her physical therapy session following a stroke.

Defendants Apex Physical Therapy LLC, Ryan Lampe, Jeffrey Swank, Amy Kuhl, Meghan Whaley, Teri Kampwerth and Kerri Travous-Anstedt filed a motion to dismiss or strike the suit on April 15, 2016, through attorney Karen Vivian-Nathan of the Law Offices of Edwards Kozel in Chicago.

They argued that plaintiff Sam Lewis’ complaint fails to state a cause of action for res ipsa loquitur and fails to make a prima facie showing based on the uncontested facts.

“The law is clear that in order to state a cause of action for negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur that a plaintiff ‘must plead and prove that he or she was injured in an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence, and by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control,” the motion stated.

The defendants added that nothing was documented in the medical record and her fracture was not diagnosed until late February 2014.

“Accordingly, it is unclear how the alleged negligence speaks for itself and it is the defendants’ position that the plaintiff should be unable to avail herself of the presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur based on her very own averments,” the motion states.

The defendants also argued that the willful and wanton allegations must be stricken because punitive damages are not recoverable in medical negligence cases in Illinois.

Lewis filed a response in opposition to the defendants’ motion to strike and dismiss on Aug. 12, 2016, through attorney Michael C. Seamands of the Law Office of Michael C. Seamands LLC in St. Louis.

She argued that the defendants did not dispute that her foot was fractured or that the fracture occurred while she was engaged in her prescribed exercises during her physical therapy session.

She also argued that her fractured food is an “unusual, unexpected or untoward medical result,” satisfying res ipsa loquitur requirements.

“[It] is common sense that a typical patient who is attending a new physical therapist would not expect their foot to fracture while engaging in the prescribed exercises.

“Plaintiff’s foot did not fracture because she tripped and fell or some other accidental occurrence, rather the foot was injured while engaging in her physical therapy exercises assigned and controlled by Defendants. Such an injury ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence,” the response stated.

Lewis further argued that she notified the defendants of her foot issues during her therapy session but they failed to take any action.

“Once again, the fractured foot and nerve damage are considered an ‘unusual, unexpected or untoward medical result,’ and it is common sense that a patient would not ordinarily fracture their foot while engaging in exercises prescribed by their physical therapist,” the response states.

The plaintiff added that while she cited willful and wanton allegations, she did not do so for the purpose of pleading a claim for punitive damages at that time.

The defendants filed a reply to the plaintiff’s response on Aug. 19, 2016.

They argued that while the plaintiff alleged they failed to diagnose, which they said is an improper allegation, she did not allege that they failed to treat the fracture.

“Importantly, on information and belief based on a telephone conversation with the plaintiff’s counsel, the claim against the defendants is not that the fracture necessarily occurred during physical therapy, but that the personnel failed to address plaintiff’s alleged complaints and facilitate her obtaining medical assistance even though her husband is a physician’s assistant,” the reply stated.

Lewis alleged the defendants did not dispute that the fracture occurred during physical therapy, “although the defendants most definitely contest this claim and would emphasize that the medical evidence is undisputed that the plaintiff’s foot fracture was not diagnosed until several weeks after the alleged fracture occurred,” the reply continued.

As for the plaintiff’s willful and wanton claim, they argued that at no time would it be legally permissible for Lewis to seek recovery for punitive damages in this physical therapy malpractice case.

“Regardless of the plaintiff’s intent, her claim that the defendants willfully and wantonly failed to chart her complaints, if allowed to stand, would be unduly prejudicial to the defendants by virtue of the fact that this standard transcends negligence and denotes recklessness and/or an intention to harm.

“Permitting these allegations to remain would also be confusing to the jury. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s willful and wanton allegations must be stricken,” the reply stated.

On Aug. 25, 2016, Lewis voluntarily dismissed Whaley, Kampwerth and Travous-Anstedt with prejudice.

Circuit Judge William Mudge denied the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss the res ipsa loquitor claims. However, he sustained the defendants’ motion to strike the willful and wanton allegations.

Lewis filed an amended complaint on Oct. 14, 2016, alleging negligence against Apex Physical Therapy LLC, also known as ApexNetwork Physical Therapy, Ryan Lampe, Jeffrey Swanke and Amy Kuhl.

She alleges she began seeing the defendants for physical therapy on Jan. 29, 2014, after suffering two strokes. She claims she informed the defendants that she had weakness on the left side of her body and that her left ankle was significantly weaker than the right ankle.

Then during her third session with the defendants on Feb. 4, 2014, Lewis claims the defendants increased her leg and foot weights by a “significant” amount. She alleges she felt something “pop” in her left foot while completing the exercises.

Lewis alleges she informed the defendants of the “pop” and resulting pain, who she claims advised her that the incident was a normal effect of therapy. However, she claims the defendants failed to reference the “pop” in her medical chart.

She later visited a doctor and allegedly learned that her foot was broken, the suit states.

Lewis claims she informed the defendants of her injury, but they continued weight-bearing and range of motion exercises without consulting her physician and with her immobilization boot removed, the complaint alleges.

As a result, Lewis claims her foot occasionally goes numb and she often falls over, she walks with a limp and her fractured foot has interfered with her stroke rehabilitation, causing her to lose the possibility of any significant recovery.

The defendants answered the complaint on Nov. 14, 2016, denying the allegations against them.

In a Feb. 23 case management order, the plaintiffs were given until June 30 to identify and make available all expert witnesses. The defendants must identify their expert witnesses by Aug. 15 and make them available for deposition by Oct. 2.

The case is currently set for trial on April 2, 2018.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-110

The Illinois House of Representatives adopted a resolution June 22 to encourage airline travel to the Bahamas.

In an executive session called after the special session adjourned in just under 11 minutes, House Resolution 290 was adopted via voice vote. State Rep. Marcus Evans, D-Chicago, state Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria, and state Rep. Camille Lilly, D-Chicago, sponsored the resolution.

The resolution encourages airlines flying between Illinois and the Bahamas to explore increasing the amount of flights between Illinois and the Bahamas.

And instead of encouraging in-state tourism, HR 290 promotes a new luxury resort in the Bahamas that opened in April.

While encouraging the taxpayers they represent to spend money out of state, Illinois still has no budget.

The Illinois Senate adjourned from special session June 22 after just 11 minutes and 54 seconds, and also failed to advance a budget. The special legislative session will cost taxpayers about $50,000 per day, according to an estimate from the Chicago Tribune.

Both sides of the aisle in Springfield claim to want a compromise on a budget to prevent Illinois from becoming the first state in the union with a junk credit rating. Both Democrats and Republicans have proposed plans to raise taxes by more than $5 billion, which would increase the average Illinois household’s tax burden by $1,125 a year. But Illinoisans have expressed that they don’t want a budget that hikes taxes.

Nearly two-thirds of likely Illinois voters don’t want an income tax hike as part of the state budget, according to polling conducted by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates and commissioned by the Illinois Policy Institute. More than three-quarters of respondents oppose hiking sales taxes. And nearly 80 percent agree “Illinois state lawmakers should pass major structural reforms before passing any tax increase.”

The Illinois Policy Institute has introduced a budget proposal that offers real reform without raising taxes. This kind of reform-minded, no-tax-hike proposal is in line with what Illinoisans want. Lawmakers should use that as a framework while taxpayers pay for their costly special session.

EDWARDSVILLE — A motorist is suing another driver for allegedly causing a collision.

Edward J. Palmisano filed a complaint on June 19 in the Madison County Circuit Court against Tiffany M. Conrad, alleging she failed to maintain proper control of the vehicle she was operating.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Nov. 30, 2015, he was driving his motor vehicle when Conrad allegedly struck him. 

As a result, the plaintiff claims he suffered injuries to his hip, back and neck and expended money for necessary medical care and treatment. 

The plaintiff alleges Conrad failed to keep proper lookout for other vehicles and failed to yield right of way.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages in excess of $50,000 plus costs of this suit. 

He is represented by Chet A Kelly of Foley & Kelly LLC in Belleville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-861

EDWARDSVILLE — An motorist is suing two men and their employers following a multi-vehicle collision in 2015.

Vontrell Miller filed a complaint on June 15 in the Madison County Circuit Court against Marty J. Holt, as representative of the estate of Glen Dale Holt, URSA Major Corporation, Scott Mielnicki, USF Holland Inc., et al., alleging Mielnicki and Glen Holt negligently operated a vehicle owned by their employers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on June 24, 2015, he severely and permanently injured when Mielnicki and Glen Holt allegedly caused a multi-vehicle collision.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to operate their vehicles at a speed reasonable under the existing condition.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages against each defendant in excess of $50,000, plus costs of this suit and all other relief as this court may deem appropriate. 

He is represented by Jonathan P. Mincieli of Meyers & Flowers LLC in St. Charles and Greg Turman of Grossman Law Offices in Dallas.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-847

EDWARDSVILLE — A motorist is suing the owner of a tractor-trailer and its driver for allegedly hitting her car while she pulled over to investigate an overturned vehicle.

Ramona Caponegro filed a complaint on June 19 in the Madison County Circuit Court against Granton Samboja Kirombo and AZ Transport Company, alleging AZ Transport negligently entrusted its tractor-trailer to a careless driver.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Dec. 16, 2016, she was driving a motor vehicle when she allegedly stopped to investigate an overturned vehicle. At the same time, she alleges Kirombo negligently crashed the tractor-trailer owned by AZ Transport into the plaintiff's vehicle, causing it to collide with the plaintiff herself. 

As a result, the plaintiff claims she sustained injuries causing pain and suffering, loss of normal life and incurred medical expenses. 

The plaintiff alleges Kirombo failed to reduce speed, stop or swerve to avoid collision.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages in excess of $50,000 plus costs of this action. 

She is represented by John J. Hopkins of John J. Hopkins & Associates PC in Alton.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-862

EDWARDSVILLE — A driver is suing another motorist for allegedly running a red light and causing a crash.

Ana E. Tryfonas filed a complaint on June 19 in the Madison County Circuit Court against Lori D. Kratschmer, alleging the defendant negligently failed to obey the red light traffic signal.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2015, she was operating a motor vehicle when the defendant allegedly ran a red light and caused a crash. 

The plaintiff claims she sustained injuries to her, neck, shoulder, ankle and hip. 

The plaintiff alleges Kratschmer failed to maintain careful lookout and failed to yield right of way.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the court, costs expended for this action and all other relief the court deems necessary. 

She is represented by Kenneth K. Vuylsteke of Fox & Vuylsteke LLP in Webster Groves, Mo.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-867

EDWARDSVILLE — A passenger is suing the driver for allegedly crashing into a pole.

Louis P. Campbell filed a complaint on June 15 in Madison County Circuit Court against Sarah Mitchell, alleging she breached her duty to operate her vehicle in a careful manner.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on July 2, 2015, he was a passenger in a vehicle being operated by the defendant in a northerly direction on Old Alton Road near its intersection with Canham Lane in Chouteau Township. He claims he was injured when the vehicle struck a power line pole. 

As a result, the plaintiff allegedly incurred substantial medical expenses and suffered extreme physical and emotional pain. 

The plaintiff alleges Mitchell negligently drove the vehicle at a speed greater than what was warranted by the road condition and failed to keep a proper lookout.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against the defendant in an amount exceeding $50,000 plus costs of this action. 

She is represented by Thomas E. Hildebrand of the Thomas E. Hildebrand Law Office in Granite City.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-845

EDWARDSVILLE — A motorist is suing another driver for allegedly causing a Bethalto collision.

Danuell R. Greenlee filed a complaint on June 15 in Madison County Circuit Court against Larry G. Wofford, alleging he failed to maintain proper control of his vehicle.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on June 24, 2015, he was driving northbound on Illinois Route 111, approaching Illinois Route 140, when Wofford allegedly drove into his pathway and struck his vehicle. 

As a result, the plaintiff claims he sustained injuries to his neck, shoulder, back and other parts of the body. 

The plaintiff alleges Wofford failed to yield right of way and failed to maintain careful lookout for other vehicles.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages in an amount in excess of $50,000 and costs for this suit. He is represented by Charles W. Armbruster and Michael T. Blotevogel of Armbruster Dripps Winterscheidt & Blotevogel LLC in Maryville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-844

It is tale of two states – the “Show Me State” and the “Sue Me State.”

Missouri – the Show Me State – has responded to a growing lawsuit abuse epidemic there by moving swiftly this year to enact meaningful lawsuit reforms that will stop personal injury lawyers from filing junk lawsuits against employers. Thanks to the actions of the state legislature and Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, The Show Me State is showing the way. 

Illinois – the Sue Me State – continues to allow powerful personal injury lawyers to game the system here to their personal advantage while their backers in the Illinois General Assembly continue to block common sense lawsuit reforms that will help keep businesses from fleeing our state. The Sue Me State is saying, “Sue away!” 

Last December, the “Judicial Hellholes” report from the American Tort Reform Foundation ranked the City of St. Louis the worst Judicial Hellhole in the country. That same report named Cook, Madison and St. Clair Counties in Illinois among the worst Judicial Hellholes in the country. 

This was the first time a Missouri county was ranked high on the Judicial Hellholes rankings, while Illinois has been home to multiple high-ranked counties for well over a decade. 

Citing the Judicial Hellholes report, Missouri legislators moved quickly to remove the Hellhole moniker from the Show Me State.

In a press release highlighting the formation of a Special Committee on Litigation Reform, Missouri State Rep. Kevin Corlew stated: “Reining in our court system through lawsuit reform will help make Missouri a place where fear of needless litigation is not a disincentive to job creation.” 

These legislators were encouraged to act by newly elected Governor Greitens, who understood the importance of passing lawsuit reforms that would restore fairness and balance to Missouri courts and keep businesses from leaving a state where the litigation climate is pro-personal injury lawyer. 

In Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner likewise pushed for job saving lawsuit reforms after taking office, and yet he has been stymied by legislative leaders closely aligned with the personal injury lawyers time after time. 

This favor to the personal injury lawyers is having a direct impact on job creation efforts in Illinois. According to the most recent “Lawsuit Climate Survey” conducted by Harris Poll, Illinois ranks near the bottom of the nation in terms of its lawsuit environment – 48th worst of the 50 states. More than 75 percent of the business leaders surveyed by Harris Poll for this report said lawsuit climate is a “significant factor” in determining where to expand and grow. 

Illinois needs jobs – not more lawsuits. The Illinois General Assembly will likely be meeting throughout the summer, which means there is still an opportunity for lawmakers to enact the lawsuit reforms our state desperately needs and keep businesses from fleeing across the Mississippi River to Missouri. 

The Show Me state is showing the way to reform – and rolling out the red carpet to businesses in Illinois that are tired of having a lawsuit target on their back. It is time for Illinois to stop being the Sue Me state and time to finally pass common sense lawsuit reforms.

BELLEVILLE — Two vehicle owners are suing Unique Insurance Company for allegedly failing to properly compensate them when their vehicle was damaged in flash floods.

Michael Dawson and Alexaundria Redd-Bates filed a complaint on June 16 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Unique Insurance Company, alleging it failed to comply with the agreed insurance contract.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that on Aug. 9, 2016, they purchased an insurance policy from the defendant, which provided insurance claims in excess of $25,000 for property damage, collision and comprehensive coverage. 

The plaintiffs claim the insurer failed to compensate them when their vehicle suffered total damage in a heavy rainstorm and flash flood. They also claim they did not receive market value of the vehicle when the damage occurred only five days after purchase, as provided in the insurance policy. 

The plaintiffs allege the defendant failed and refused to pay the full value of the vehicle amounting to $18,597 and failed to pay any amount under either the collision or comprehensive coverage.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek to recover attorney fees, plus penalty of 60 percent of the amount recovered, exclusive of costs, up to a recovery of $60,000, and other relief the court may deem fit and proper. 

They are represented by David M. Duree of David M. Duree & Associates, PC in O'Fallon.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-325

EDWARDSVILLE — The mother of a minor is suing a driver, alleging that the defendant caused an accident when he attempted to change lanes.

Lillian Flieger, individually and as next-of-kin of Nicholas Flieger, a minor, filed a complaint on June 12 in Madison County Circuit Court against Kevin Mora alleging that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the operation, possession and control of his vehicle so as not to cause injury to the person and property of plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on March 19, 2016, plaintiff Lillian Flieger was driving northbound on Collinsville Road in Fairmont City together with her minor son Nicholas Flieger as passenger when she collided with the defendant's vehicle. Defendant Mora allegedly attempted to change lanes and caused a collision with the plaintiffs' vehicle. As a result, plaintiffs suffered severe physical injuries, loss of normal life and medical expenses. 

The plaintiff holds Mora responsible because he allegedly failed to keep his vehicle in his own lane of traffic, failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles and failed to give a proper signal or sound his horn in time to warn plaintiffs.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in excess $50,000 together with costs of action and any other further relief which the court deems proper. She is represented by Michael P. Glisson of Williamson, Webster, Falb and Glisson in Alton.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-824

BELLEVILLE — A trucking company is suing an excavating contractor for allegedly failing to make payments.

Ray LaFore Truck Services, Inc. filed a complaint on June 14 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Kamadulski Excavating and Grading Company, Inc., alleging the defendant failed to pay for services acquired.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on May 18, 2015, it entered into an oral contract with the defendant, whereby Ray LaFore provided equipment rental, truck rental, services and bluff dirt materials to the defendants as detailed in the invoices made. 

The plaintiff claims it performed its obligations pursuant to the contract but failed to receive payment in the amount of $75,649.22. 

The plaintiff alleges Kamadulski failed to pay the outstanding balance in the amount of $75,649.22 for the work, labor and/or materials and the finance charges associated with the agreed contract.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for the principal sum of $75,649.22, plus award of attorney's fees, court costs, and for such further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 

It is represented by Shane M. Moskop of Freeark, Harvey & Mendillo, PC in Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-320

EDWARDSVILLE — A widow is suing a motorist, alleging the defendant was negligent in a collision that resulted in the death of her husband while he was a pedestrian.

Karen Lee, as special administrator of the estate of Melvin Lee, filed a complaint on June 9 in Madison County Circuit Court against Robbie Robinson alleging that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the operation of a vehicle under Illinois law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Oct. 23, 2015, her husband Melvin Lee was a pedestrian on Western Avenue in Blue Island, Ill. when he was struck by the defendant's vehicle and died shortly after. As a result, Karen Lee suffered personal and pecuniary damages and loss of companionship. 

The plaintiff holds Robbie Robinson responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to maintain a lane of traffic, failed to yield the right of way to a pedestrian, failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to give a proper signal.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment on behalf of the next kin in an amount to fully and fairly compensate their losses under the terms of the Wrongful Death Act in excess of $50,000. She is represented by Michael Glisson of Williamson, Webster, Falb and Glisson in Alton.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-807

EDWARDSVILLE — A woman is suing Petsmart Inc., a pet supplies retailer, claiming that she was attacked and injured by an animal inside the store.

Reba M. Woodsides, by Karla D. Kloss, her attorney in fact, filed a complaint on June 20 in Madison County Circuit Court against Petsmart alleging that the store on Junction Drive in Glen Carbon failed to determine whether animals allowed into the store posed a safety threat to customers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Dec. 21, 2016, she was lawfully upon defendant's premises when she was attacked by a dog accompanied by an unknown person. She was knocked to the ground and sustained injuries to her right arm and right hip. The plaintiff was caused to suffer physical and mental pain and disfigurement, and she incurred medical expenses, she claims. The plaintiff further holds Petsmart responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to warn plaintiff that she could be attacked by animals inside the premises.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages in excess of $50,000 plus costs of this suit. She is represented by Thomas E. Hildebrand of the Thomas E. Hildebrand Law Office in Granite City.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-874

EDWARDSVILLE — A metal worker is suing Kehrer Brothers Construction Inc. and Contegra Construction Company LLC, alleging negligence for failing to secure hardware near scaffolding he was working on.

Joshua T. Williamson filed a complaint on June 20 in Madison County Circuit Court against the defendants alleging that defendant Kehrer failed to properly secure a handrail on a new building being constructed.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Dec. 26, 2016, he was climbing scaffolding assembled by defendant Kehrer when he nearly fell from a significant height to the ground when a handrail swung outward as he grabbed onto it. The plaintiff was able to prevent the fall by keeping hold of the handrail but was injured while steadying himself. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his left shoulder, causing him to suffer great pain of body and mind, disability and medical expenses. The plaintiff holds Kehrer Brothers and Contegra Construction responsible because they allegedly failed to properly inspect and discover the defect or the dangerous condition of the scaffolding.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs of this suit and all further relief that the court may deem just and equitable. He is represented by James P. Lemonds, Alan Pirtle and Steven W. Duke of Brown & Crouppen PC in St. Louis.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-868