Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Received summary judgment in favor of his client in a complex insurance coverage case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Fencl represented an insurer which issued Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Employers’ Liability (EL) policies to its insured.  Under the CGL Policy, Fencl argued that the Employer’s Liability exclusion precluded coverage for the Third Party Complaint. Since there was no coverage available under either the CGL policy or EL policy, the court granted Mr. Fencl’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and entered a judgment in favor of his client that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the named insured. August 2017.

Received summary judgment in favor of the client in a complex, and hotly contested, breach of contract insurance dispute.  By securing summary judgment in this breach of contract case, Johnson & Bell effectively saved its client, a private security company, $1.3 million. The court agreed with our argument and granted summary judgment, dismissing all arguments to the contrary. May 2016.

Successfully argued that his client’s duty to defend or indemnify a construction contractor as an additional insured was never properly triggered under the policy and was not entitled to potentially $1.6 million in coverage under his client’s policy. The court agreed with our client and granted summary judgment in his client’s favor. April 2016.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurance carrier and its insured, a national trucking company, in a wrongful death/declaratory judgment case in which plaintiff’s widow, who sought $2 million in damages. After two years of depositions, motions, and highly contested hearings, the court ultimately granted summary judgment for both the insurance company and the transportation insureds. December 2015.

Obtained judgment in favor of his client in an insurance coverage lawsuit in which the plaintiff sought recovery of $416,000 following a three-day bench trial.  The Court ultimately ruled in a written decision that the plaintiff did not overcome the presumption of ownership created by the certificate of title and that our client’s primary policy did not apply to the accident. October 2015.

Wojcik v. Yamazaki Mazak Corp. (1st Dist.) Statute of limitations on products case.

Sportmart v. Daisy Manufacturing (1st Dist.) Duty to defend under additional insured endorsement. December 1994.

Fitzpatrick v. Perry (1st Dist.) Owners duties under SWA. May 1991.

Thomas v. Hollymatic (1st Dist.) Statute of limitations on product liability case. April 1989.