422 North Northwest Highway, Suite 200
Park Ridge, IL 60068
847-292-1200 | 847-292-1208 (Fax)
www.judgeltd.com
ContactUs@judgeltd.com

A DEFENSE LAW FIRM DEDICATED TO IMPROVING
DEFENSE ARGUMENTS FOR INSUREDS & SELF-INSUREDS

Speaking Engagements: Illinois Continuing Legal Education, PRIMA Seminar, Association of County Engineers, East Central Illinois Highway Commissioners Association, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) (Mock Trial), and Indiana Insurance Co. (Coverage)

To get out of the “day-to-day routine” in the office, we do appear at speaking engagements to discuss law favorable to the defense and to prove that, contrary to some opinions, lawyers are not “dull, boring and tedious, lacking a sense of humor.”  We bring a mixture of law, jokes and “war stories” to our speaking engagements, some of which lately have included or will include the following:

(1)  November 9, 2011 – Illinois State Bar Association, Continuing Legal Education.

Topic:“Jury Selection and Voir Dire:  A Plaintiff and Defense Perspective”

Plaintiff: Todd Smith of Power Rogers & Smith

Defendant: Jay Judge of Judge, James, Hoban & Fisher

Jay Judge presented:  (1) A Pass Out with 19 areas for “deselecting potentially biased jurors, not preconditioning jurors” and (2) Some 34 Proposed Voir Dire Questions for the Defense – Generally.

(2) On December 5, 2011, Dustin Fisher spoke at a PRIMA Spring Conference on immunity defenses and the Tort Immunity Act and distributed the firm’s “30 Common Law & Tort Immunity Act Defense Rules Available to Defendants in Illinois” (99 pages).

(3) On April 7, 2011, Jay Judge spoke to the Illinois Association of County Engineers at their Spring Meeting in Effingham, Illinois, discussing the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and its requirements which must be followed to avoid lawsuits and liability: (1) “Standard” – “shall”/mandatory; (2) “Guidance” – “should”/discretionary; and (3) “Option” – “may”/discretionary advice.

We discussed cases involving liability for signs and markings and § 2-201, discretionary immunity, of the Tort Immunity Act and the firm’s “30 Common Law & Tort Immunity Act Defense Rules Available to Defendants in Illinois.”

(4) March 30, 2012 – East Central Illinois Highway Commissioners Association (ECIHCA).

Topic: “Advice for Highway Commissioners in Their Efforts to Keep Roads Safe”

We discussed snow-plowing, inspecting for dead trees that could fall on the road, § 2-201 Discretionary Immunity of the Tort Immunity Act and how it works, new Illinois Jury Instructions forbidding jurors from using:  “Internet, BlackBerries, Cell Phones, Facebook, Blogs, etc.,” and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and “40 Questions When You Testify at a Deposition or at a Trial.”

(5)  April 18, 2012 – Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA).

Topic: “Mock Trial:  Direct Exam and Cross-Exam of a Traffic Engineer Expert Opinion Witness in a Wrongful Death Case Against the County Claiming Road Closed During Construction Violated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)”

The Mock Trial shows what plaintiff tries to prove in a death case, negligence case and how the defendant refutes plaintiff’s and plaintiff’s expert’s theories.

(6) May 22, 2012 – Indiana Insurance Co. in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Topic: “Tenders of the Defense to Receive Additional Insured Coverage in Illinois Under the Rules of:  (1) John Burns Construction Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co.; and (2) Cincinnati Cos. v. West American Insurance Co.”

Where its insureds are additional insureds on the policies of others, Indiana Insurance Co. seeks to make a proper “John Burns Targeted Tender or Selective Tender.”

(a)   John Burns Construction Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co., 189 Ill.2d 570, 727 N.E.2d 211 (2000) (Where the insured is also an “additional insured” on another insurer’s policy covering the same accident, the insured can “choose which insurance company it wants” to defend and cover it by making a “targeted tender” or “selective tender” to that insurer).

(b)    Cincinnati Cos. v. West American Insurance Co., 183 Ill.2d 317, 701 N.E.2d 499 (1999) (Where the insurer knows an “additional insured” on its policy has been sued and the complaint triggers potential coverage and a duty to defend, the insurer must contact the “additional insured” and inquire if a defense is desired – insurer cannot insist upon and wait for the “additional insured” to tender its defense.