• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
22 results

No. 438 ORDER

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. American States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 438 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 13, 2016)
This matter having come on Plaintiff, Chicago Import, Inc.’s, Motion to Release Funds Held by Court and the Court being advised that Defendant, American States Insurance Company, does not object to the motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Chicago Import Inc.’s Motion it GRANTED.
One check shall be made payable to “Bank of Hope” in the amount of 1,390,585.78.
Bank of Hope’s check will be picked up by Deborah Ashen of the firm, Ashen/Faulkner.
The Clerk of the Court shall issue a check for the balance of the proceeds, including interest the funds have accrued, minus the registry fee charged by the Clerk’s Office, payable to “Chicago Import, Inc.,” to be picked up by Mark Roth of the law firm of Roth Fioretti, LLC.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 426 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. Amercan States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 426 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)
Determining understated workers’ compensation liabilities, which were always calculable by the defendant, id. at *2, is different than the extensive undertaking required to value Chicago Import’s loss, which involved opinion and not mere computation, and which was the subject of competing expert testimony at trial.
Barring Testimony on Chinese Currency and Oil Prices Steve Reed, American States’s forensic accountant expert, testified that he did not credit Chicago Import’s calculation of the cost of goods sold in 2006 and 2007.
To this day, however, American States has never identified where Reed disclosed—either in his expert report or deposition—an opinion, analysis, or schedule relating Chinese currency and oil prices to Chicago Import’s cost of goods sold.
American States argues that the motion in limine was improperly granted, contending that prior fires and insurance claims show motive and lack of accident, not propensity, and would not have prejudiced Chicago Import.
On a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50,7 “the question is not whether the jury believed the right people, but only whether it was presented with a legally sufficient amount of evidence from which it could reasonably derive its verdict.” Massey v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Ill., 226 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. 2000).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Chicago Import, Inc. v. American States Insurance Company

Docket 1:09-cv-02885, Illinois Northern District Court (May 12, 2009)
Honorable Manish S. Shah, presiding
Insurance
DivisionChicago
FlagsMASON, PROTO, TERMED
Demand$1,000,000
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Case Type110 Insurance
Tags110 Insurance, 110 Insurance
Plaintiff Chicago Import, Inc.
Defendant American States Insurance Company
Movant Wolin & Rosen, Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 341 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, each party's motion for summary judgment ...

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. Amercan States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 341 (N.D.Ill. May. 8, 2015)
Motion for Summary JudgmentPartial
Nonetheless, the question of whether the insureds actually committed arson, voiding their policy, went to the jury.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 417 MOTION by Defendant American States Insurance Company for new trial and/or judgment notwithstanding ...

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. American States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 417 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 11, 2016)
Motion for New Trial
Fisher Kanaris, P.C., move this Honorable Court for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and/or a New Trial and in support thereof, states as follows:
Chicago Import violated the Court’s ruling that it should not introduce evidence that there have been no charges of arson brought against Mr. Punjabi or any other individual arising out of the fire at the Knox Warehouse; 6.
The Court erred by prohibiting evidence relative to the value of goods in the Knox Warehouse prior to the fire during the cross-examination of Rajesh Prajapati; 7.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be entered based on the misrepresentations made by Chicago Import in its Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss; 9.
The totality of numerous errors made by the Court resulted in a jury trial that was heavily and improperly skewed in favor of Chicago Import and to the severe detriment of American States.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 413 MOTION by Plaintiff Chicago Import, Inc. to amend/correct entered judgment 398 to include prejudgment ...

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. American States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 413 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 24, 2016)
Motion to Amend Judgment
Now comes the Plaintiff, Chicago Import, Inc. (“Chicago Import”), through its undersigned attorneys, Orum & Roth, LLC, and for its Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Prejudgment Interest pursuant to Rule 59(e), states:
As established at trial, Chicago Import’s public adjuster and American States’ appraiser conducted a physical inventory of the merchandise destroyed in the fire in January and February 2008.
The proof of loss is dated April 18, 2008, and requests $5 million for damages to Chicago Import’s merchandise located in the Knox warehouse at the time of the fire at issue.
Illinois law is clear that “an insurance policy is a written instrument covered by this statute.” Couch v. State Farm Ins. Co., 279 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 1054, 666 N.E.2d 24, 27 (1996) (citing Ervin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 Ill.App.3d 982, 991, 469 N.E.2d 243, 250 (1984)); Central Nat’l Chicago Corp. v. Lumbermens Mut.
The Illinois Supreme Court in Wernick explained the basis for an equitable award of prejudgment interest as follows: The goal of proceedings sounding in equity is to make the injured party whole.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 384 MOTION by Plaintiff Chicago Import, Inc. to bar Defendant's Use of Undisclosed Demonstrative ...

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. Amercan States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 384 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 4, 2016)
If, due to unforeseen circumstances during trial a party wishes to introduce an exhibit not previously listed, notice should be given as soon as possible to the opposing side and to the Court so that any objections can be discussed.
American States’ exhibit list also seeks to introduce substantively into evidence every single deposition ever taken in the case, as well as an examination under oath taken before trial.
At the pretrial in this matter held on Monday, February 29, 2016, this Court heard argument on the parties’ objections as to each other party’s demonstrative exhibits.
The Standing Order expressly provides, in relevant part, as follows: If, due to unforeseen circumstances during trial a party wishes to introduce an exhibit not previously listed, notice should be given as soon as possible to the opposing side and to the Court so that any objections can be discussed.
In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that this Court bar American States from using demonstrative exhibits 1, 3, 20, 21 and 23 as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 418

Document Chicago Import, Inc. v. American States Insurance Company, 1:09-cv-02885, No. 418 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 11, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>