Won a motion for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for his insurance agents clients after a tireless effort and a two year investigation.As a result, six of the plaintiffs’ seven counts were dismissed with prejudice and the case later settled for a nominal sum. Wolf’s client’s position that: (1) Plaintiffs suffered no actual damages to sustain a cause of action for consumer fraud, breach of contract and misrepresentation (2) Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim could only be brought against an insurance company, not an individual insurance agent (3) the breach of fiduciary claim was foreclosed by Illinois statutory law and (4) Plaintiffs did not satisfy the heightened requirements to plead a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following extensive briefing and an hour-long argument in which the plaintiffs were represented by three lawyers from three different law firms, the judge agreed with Mr. The plaintiffs sought several million dollars if the case went to trial. The plaintiffs filed suit after numerous alleged misrepresentations were made to them while procuring a life insurance policy, including threats to report the plaintiffs to immigration officials if they challenged the validity of the policy.
Obtained a dismissal of all seven counts against his insurance agent client, including six counts that carried penalties of reimbursement of a plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and punitive damages.The court dismissed the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty counts with prejudice, an uncommon result in this venue, and the conspiracy count without prejudice.
TOM WOLF FULL
Following extensive briefing and oral argument, the court ruled that, despite the plaintiff husband not knowing the full extent of his damages or the number of parties involved in the alleged scheme, his knowledge that one device existed prior to the filing of the divorce case put him on inquiry notice to discover any and all malpractice based potential causes of actions and file his complaint within two years, which he did not do.
TOM WOLF PROFESSIONAL
This development came after he successfully persuaded the judge not to consolidate the professional liability lawsuit with the divorce case. Wolf argued that the statute of limitations barred the malpractice claims based on documents uncovered in the separate divorce proceedings, of which he convinced the court to take judicial notice. The devices had the effect of substantially reducing the plaintiff’s share of the marital estate assets following the divorce. The firm did not advise the parties to secure separate representation even though they had performed work for the wife for years, nor did they have the parties sign an engagement letter. The suit, which involves tens of millions of dollars and one of the region’s top divorce attorneys, alleged that the accountant engaged in a conspiracy with other professionals, trustees, and his wife when the firm set up estate planning devices prior to the divorce proceedings.
0 kommentar(er)
