In 2010, the appellate court affirmed partial summary judgment for our client condominium owners in a dispute regarding the assessment of the cost to replace limited common elements.

The Illinois Supreme Court granted North American’s petition for leave to appeal. The Court for the first time recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment against North American for intruding upon Lawlor’s seclusion based on its role in obtaining Lawlor’s phone records without her knowledge or consent. The Court further found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that North American’s exercised control over its agent by directing it to obtain specific information and providing it with the necessary tools to accomplish the task.

With respect to damages, the Supreme Court joined the jury, trial court and appellate court in finding that North American’s conduct was so egregious as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages for its repeated wrongful conduct of obtaining Lawlor’s phone records. The Court found that the trial court erred by failing to reduce the punitive damage award to $65,000 - an amount equal to the compensatory damage award.

Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s finding that that the record was devoid of evidence to support the judgment in favor of North American. The Court found that North American’s claim against Lawlor was entirely speculative and wholly insufficient to conclude that Lawlor breached her duty of loyalty by attempting to divert business.

The Illinois appellate court affirmed judgment on the pleadings in favor of the firm’s clients in a declaratory judgment action. The clients were former investors in a limited partnership investment fund who had filed a declaratory judgment action seeking determination as to their liability for overpayments made to them by the fund. The liquidating trustee of the fund filed counterclaims seeking repayment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of past distributions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the partnership agreement and the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act barred the trustee’s claims.