The Illinois Supreme Court has announced that tomorrow morning, October 18, it will file opinions in six civil cases:

  • No. 112064 – Pielet v. Pielet — (1) Was plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of a long-term consulting agreement viable against corporation under the Survival Statute, 805 ILCS 5/12.80, even though the agreement was not breached until five years after dissolution of the corporation? (2) Was the defendant relieved of its obligations under the contract pursuant to the doctrine of novation? See Contract Law.
  • No. 112219 et al. — Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP — (1) Were the investment bank defendants the fiduciaries of their clients, as a matter of law and fact, with respect to their recommendations regarding certain "investment strategies" alleged to hold tax benefits? (2) Did the plaintiffs’ claims accrue prior to the entry of IRS assessments against them with respect to the disputed investments? (3) Does the clause of 735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(b), the statute of repose relating to tax professionals, providing for the last date on which a claim for professional negligence may be brought when an IRS tax assessment has been entered lengthen the statutory period of repose? See Civil Procedure.
  • No. 112530 – Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois — (1) Were private investigators the agents of defendant for purposes of applying respondeat superior? (2) Did the Circuit Court abuse its discretion by partially remitting an award of $1.75 million in punitive damages? (3) Was the Circuit Court’s finding of a breach of the duty of loyalty contrary to the weight of the evidence? See Tort Law.
  • No. 112788 – Moore v. Chicago Park District — Does an unnatural accumulation of snow and ice constitute the ‘existence of a condition of any public property’ as this expression is used in Section 3-106 of the Tort Immunity Act? See Tort Law.
  • No. 113270 – Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc. ­– Where the I-beam on a bridge the plaintiffs were constructing collapsed and fell, did the plaintiffs state a triable issue of fact on (1) the "relationship" prong of duty to preserve evidence, and (2) the "foreseeability" prong of the duty, meaning that a reasonable person would have foreseen that the beam was material to a potential civil action? See Tort Law.
  • No. 113365 – County Preferred Insurance Co. v. Whitehead — Is the provision of an Illinois automobile insurance policy imposing a two-year statute of limitations on uninsured motorists claims invalid as against public policy with respect to an accident which occurred in Wisconsin, where the statute of limitations for uninsured motorist claims is three years? See Insurance Law.

Join us back here tomorrow as we begin our summaries and analysis of all the new civil opinions.