cmnwordpress

When Fortune 500 companies were asked to name the top law firms they turn to when litigation arises, Chittenden, Murday & Novotny LLC was on their list.  CMN is pleased to announce that it has again been named as a 2012 “Go-To Law Firm”® in Litigation.  CMN was also named a 2012 “Go-To Law Firm”® in Employment Litigation.  The honors are awarded by ALM Media based on surveys sent to general counsel at each of the top 500 public companies.

Bill Chittenden was among 35 Leading Lawyers in Chicago selected for an article profiling his career in the 2012 issue of Leading Lawyers Magazine.  See attached article.

Related Documents
   Featured Article

Six CMN attorneys were recognized as 2012 Leading Lawyers in Illinois.  Bill Chittenden, Don Murday and Joe Hasman were named Leading Lawyers in Commercial Litigation and Civil Appellate Law.  David Novotny was named a Leading Lawyer in the areas of Class Action Defense, Civil Appellate Law and Insurance/Reinsurance Litigation.  Elizabeth Doolin was named a Leading Lawyer in the areas of Commercial Litigation, Civil Appellate Law and Employment Law: Management.  David Schmidt was named a Leading Lawyer in the area of Commercial Litigation.  Distinction as a “Leading Lawyer” is the product of a rigorous selection process that focuses on recommendations from peers in the lawyer’s particular practice area followed by extensive discussion with other highly regarded lawyers in the same area of practice.  Less than 5% of all lawyers in the State of Illinois are selected for this distinction.

Chittenden, Murday & Novotny LLC proudly announces that Law & Politics Magazine and the publishers of Chicago Magazine have again named Bill Chittenden a “Super Lawyer” in Business Litigation in 2012.  The process began with thousands of ballots sent to attorneys across the State of Illinois asking them to nominate the best lawyers they had “personally observed.”  A panel of recognized top lawyers in the commercial/business litigation practice area was assembled to review the nominations and evaluation criteria.  Through this process, the panel identified the nominees with the highest scores.  The attorneys chosen represent the top 5% of attorneys in the State of Illinois.

In a significant financial institution bond decision, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a fake collateral document — no matter how close in likeness it may be to a genuine original — is not a Counterfeit for purposes of Counterfeit coverage under a standard financial institution bond (Form 24).  The appellate court’s ruling now settles what arguably was an open question in this circuit.

In North Shore Bank, FSB v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, the insured bank had accepted a fake certificate or origin to secure a $400,000 loan for the purchase of a supposed new recreational motor home.  After the bank’s customer defaulted, an investigation revealed the certificate — while appearing to be authentic — did not correspond to a real motor home.  Instead, the bank’s customer — the owner of an auto dealership — created the fake certificate and, during an on-site inspection, passed off an older motor home as the “new” motor home he claimed to be purchasing.

On appeal from summary judgment in favor of Progressive (the Firm’s client), the bank argued that the fake certificate matched the likeness and contained the same vehicle identification number of the motor home it inspected.  According to the bank, this was sufficient to qualify as a Counterfeit and trigger the bond’s coverage.  The Seventh Circuit disagreed.

Adopting the Firm’s coverage arguments, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a Counterfeit must imitate an original document and therefore, where no such original document exists, a document is not Counterfeit, but simply fake.  That is precisely what the bank accepted: a fake certificate that did not imitate a real certificate for a real motor home.  And in that circumstance, the Seventh Circuit held that the fake certificate at issue was not a Counterfeit under the terms of Progressive’s standard financial institution bond.

Because the appellate court ruled that the fake certificate was not a Counterfeit, the court did not reach a secondary argument: that the bank also failed to act in good faith as further required for Counterfeit coverage.  Significantly, however, the appellate court — following arguments made by Progressive — recited various ways in which the insured bank could have detected the fraud.  This arguably puts banks on notice that the Seventh Circuit is mindful of a bank’s ability to prevent fraud of this nature, which is a factor that may bear upon a bank’s ability to satisfy the good faith requirement for Counterfeit coverage.

Michael Galibois, a member of the Firm, argued and briefed the matter on behalf of Progressive in the appellate and district courts, with support from Jennifer Stegmaier, a senior associate.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion can be found at North Shore Bank, FSB v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, — F.3d — (7th Cir. 2012).  It is also attached below.

Related Documents
Seventh Circuit Opinion