Attorney Edward Christian Eberspacher IV's Legal Cases

Litigation

Sobilo v. Manassa

Jan 01, 2007

OUTCOME: Settlement

We defended a divorce attorney who failed to protect $7.3 million of marital assets before client's husband could abscond with the family loot to Egypt. Apparently in Egypt, a woman has virtually no r ... ights and once the money was taken to Egypt, there was nothing his American wife could do. I (along with attorney Daniel Meyer) defended the well meaning divorce attorney. The case went to trial. Our client wanted to settle, but we advised him to hold the line and the insurer agreed. By holding the line and taking this case to a federal court trial, we turned it into a nuisance settlement. Millions were asked for and they received pennies on the dollar.

Litigation

Melrose Park Sundries, Inc. v. Don Carlini

N/A

OUTCOME: Summary Judgment for Defense

In December 2008 I (along with attorney Daniel Nolan) obtained summary judgment in favor of an insurance broker and am now defending against Plaintiff’s appeal. It is a sticky case because the defenda ... nt passed away shortly after the suit was filed but before ever personally served with the lawsuit. It was a case of Plaintiff allegations—but no defendant to provide his own version of the facts. The plaintiff, an owner of a liquor-grocery store in Illinois was opening the business and alleged to have asked the insurance broker for all the insurance she needed. Her store manager was present for the meeting with the broker, and supported the owner’s testimony. Approximately one-and-a-half years after the insurance was procured and renewed an employee was seriously injured. The store did not have Workers Compensation insurance, coverage which the business owner admittedly did not request; and yet she argued that the duty to procure this fell upon the broker. I (with attorney Nolan) used Plaintiff’s own testimony and argued in a Motion for Summary Judgment for an extension of the general law in Illinois—that a request for full or complete coverage is insufficient to establish a duty on an insurance broker. The owner had neither requested workers compensation insurance nor had requested the broker obtain any insurance to protect against employee injury. A Cook County Judge agreed with our interpretation of the law in this scenario and entered Summary Judgment in the insurance broker’s favor. Since then, the plaintiff has appealed and we may be on our way to making new Illinois case law, interpreting the statute that imposes a duty on an insurance producer to use ordinary care in insurance “requested” by the insured.

Edward Christian Eberspacher IV's Legal Cases (2)

Sobilo v. Manassa

Melrose Park Sundries, Inc. v. Don Carlini