Jennifer Marie Theodore

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Attorney

  Firm Name

  CNA
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Representative Cases: Assisted in securing judgment in the following case: The Illinois First District Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court's judgment in favor of Johnson & Bell's insurance client. In this case, plaintiff, a facility for developmentally disabled adults, sought coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit, arguing that the insurer should be estopped from raising coverage defenses because the insurer failed to defend under a reservation of rights or file a declaratory judgment action. The policy issued by the insurer was a claims-made
  reported policy that provided coverage for bodily injury claims occurring
  reported to the insurer during the policy period. Plaintiff had reported the claim after cancellation of the policy, but argued that it still fell within coverage. The appellate court agreed with Johnson & Bell's position, finding that plaintiff improperly attempted to conflate a late notice defense associated with occurrence policies with the coverage triggering requirements for a claims-made policy. The court also agreed with Johnson & Bell's argument that the policy was not ambiguous
  plaintiff failed to trigger coverage for the underlying lawsuit under the insuring agreement of the policy. This saved the client both defense costs
  potential indemnity for the underlying lawsuit.
  Secured summary judgment in favor of our transportation client:, who was mired in a business dispute over an alleged promise of start-up funding. In this case, plaintiff sought more than $500,000 in damages. Plaintiff claimed they were retained to create an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant ride-sharing program in Chicago - with the help of $500,000 of start-up funding allegedly promised by employees of Johnson & Bell's client. Plaintiff claimed that the funds were never provided, despite plaintiff investing more than $125,000 in services into the venture. Plaintiff charged Johnson & Bell's client with promissory estoppel
  unjust enrichment in its complaint.The court accepted the plaintiff's version of the facts. However, it still ruled in favor of Johnson & Bell's transportation client. On the issue of promissory estoppel, the court agreed that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Johnson & Bell's client could not be bound by promises made by its employees. Any such promises had to come from the board of directors of the company. With respect to the unjust enrichment claims, the court agreed with Johnson & Bell's contention that the services provided by plaintiff were covered by a separate contract with another organization. Johnson & Bell argued that the plaintiff had been paid $50,000 under this separate contract - the maximum allowed under the agreement. As a result, the court ruled that plaintiff could not claim unjust enrichment.