We possess vast expertise and knowledge in handling car accident cases, acting as champions for those wrongfully injured due to negligence on the road. Our attorneys will work tirelessly to ensure you receive the compensation deserving of your physical and emotional suffering caused by such an incident. Challenging insurance companies over their inadequate settlements or dealing with irresponsible drivers can be overwhelming – but not when you are backed by Carlson Bier. Recognized throughout Illinois for our diligent advocacy, we believe effective communication forms the backbone of our client-attorney relationships promising full transparency every step of the way to achieve justice on your behalf. At Carlson Bier, we understand this and aim to streamline the process for clients seeking our help in understanding Illinois’ personal injury laws. As a reputable personal injury lawyer group based in Illinois, we are well-versed with all nuances pertaining to car accidents. Car accidents can come with severe repercussions that affect your physical health and financial stability. A significant number of injuries related to vehicular mishaps require extensive surgery or prolonged medical assistance, leading to accumulating hospital bills. The psychological impact is another aspect often overlooked until later stages. All these issues necessitate expert guidance which our experienced attorneys at Carlson Bier provide. Our attorneys perform an array of tasks aimed at relieving clients from additional stressors during this trying time. These functions typically include:• Thoroughly analyzing your case• Collating necessary evidence• Crafting sturdy legal stratagems • Determining the compensation that correlates with incurred damages • Negotiating settlements assiduously • Representing you emphatically if your case goes on trialUnderstanding Illinois’ specific rules concerning negligence could prove invaluable when pursing a personal injury claim post a car accident incident. For example, Illinois employs what’s known as “modified comparative negligence” rule in cases regarding vehicle collisions. Essentially it means that one may still recover damage even if partially culpable for the accident; provided their share of blame doesn’t exceed 50 percent. However, it’s crucial to know that any potential compensatory amount would reduce by an equivalent percentage of fault allocated to oneself under Illinois’ comparative negligence law. Navigating such intricate laws is vastly simplified under the professional care of qualified counsel like ours at Carlson Bier. We also think it is important that clients understand about insurance company settlement offers – It might seem easy but settling directly with an insurance company without getting legal advice could be risky. Insurer’s goal is more often than not to minimize the payout as significantly as possible – not necessarily accurately representing the damage you have endured. At Carlson Bier, we work steadfastly to ensure that your interests are always put first and fight diligently for a fair settlement. Understanding the importance of timely legal assistance cannot be understated in personal injury cases. In Illinois, there’s a two-year statute of limitations for filing personal injury lawsuits relating to car accidents starting from the date of accident or discovery of harm (whichever comes later). Thus it becomes crucial that you engage legal help early on to safeguard against missing out on any rightful claim due to lapses in statutory timelines. To sum up, navigating through post-accidental trauma could be an overwhelming experience with substantial physical implications coupled with hefty medical bills and lost wages from work incapacitation. The attorney team at Carlson Bier works conscientiously so that our clients don’t unduly bear hardship caused by another party’s negligence or reckless conduct. Personal injuries shouldn’t derail lives but should trigger justice being served, and you deserve every ounce of compensation rightfully owed after such traumatic events. CCC Servs. , Inc. , 2020 IL App (2d) 190411, 171 N. E. 3d 61Background: Insured motorist filed action against insurer for declaratory judgment seeking construction of automobile insurance policy issued to insured and that was in effect when insured was injured by an underinsured driver. The Circuit Court, DuPage County, Bonnie M. Wheaton, J. , granted the insurer’s motions for summary judgment. Insured appealed. Holdings: The Appellate Court, Zenoff, J. , held that:1 medical payments reduction clause in automobile insurance policy conflicted with underinsured motorist provisions so as to render reduction clause ambiguous, and thus medical payment benefits were deductible from insured’s damages;2 law firm representing insured did not create common fund or common funds when it reached settlement with underinsured motorist, and thus law firm was not entitled to recover fees under common-fund doctrine; and3 collateral estoppel did not bar automobile insurers from litigating whether common-fund doctrine applied in insured motorist’s declaratory judgment action. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Maier v. CC Servs. , Inc. , 2019 IL App (3d) 170640, 132 N. E. 3d 795Background: After insured, who was injured in automobile collision with another driver, recovered full liability limits of driver’s policy, she filed amended complaint for declaratory judgment against her own automobile insurer, alleging that insurer breached contractual duty to pay for insured’s damages in accordance with uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in insured’s policy and that insurer acted in bad faith in denying insured such coverage. The Circuit Court, La Salle County, Troy D. Holland, J. , granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss claims as time-barred. Insured appealed. The Appellate Court ruled that neither the insurer nor the insured could add amended policy provisions to the court record. It was decided that the policy’s requirement for a written arbitration demand applied to both uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. The court found that a letter from the insured’s attorney to the insurer wasn’t a valid arbitration demand nor a proof of loss to toll the statute of limitations. Finally, the insurer was permitted to use the defense based on the two-year statute of limitations period. The court’s decision was affirmed. Econ. Premier Assurance Co. v. Country Mut. Ins. Co. , 2021 IL App (1st) 192364-UHolding: The circuit court’s order that granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was proper where defendant had no duty to indemnify its insured with respect to the underlying complaint and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to recover against defendant on its subrogation or unjust enrichment claims; affirmed. Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Westerheide, 2023 IL App (5th) 220343-UHolding: The court affirmed judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff where the defendant failed to make a written demand for arbitration within two years from the date of the accident as required by the underinsured provisions of the defendant’s automotive insurance policy. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Olsak, 2022 IL App (1st) 200695, 216 N. E. 3d 291In a complex legal case, an insurer sought to avoid defending or indemnifying a hockey player under a policy issued to the player’s stepfather after the player was sued for assaulting his coach. The initial Circuit Court ruling favored the insurer, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision, leading to a protracted legal battle. Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined the insurer was liable only up to the $3 million policy limit and found the insurer’s four-year delay in seeking a declaratory judgment to be reasonable. This case highlights important aspects of insurance litigation and policy limit liabilities. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durkin Elec. Co. , Inc. , 2022 IL App (1st) 210293-U, appeal denied, 199 N. E. 3d 1187 (Ill. 2022)Holding: The circuit court’s order that denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and found that defendant was an additional insured under the policy was proper. The circuit court’s order that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and found that plaintiff did not have a duty to defend or indemnify defendant under the policy was proper; affirmed. Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Groen, 2017 IL App (4th) 160028, 69 N. E. 3d 911Background: Uninsured motorist (UM) carrier brought action against insured for declaratory judgment that it owed no benefits since workers’ compensation received by insured exceeded policy limits. The Circuit Court, Sangamon County, Chris Perrin, J. , entered summary judgment in favor of the carrier. Insured appealed. Holdings: The Appellate Court, Harris, J. , held that:1 employer’s medical payments entitled carrier to setoff, and2 setoff clauses were enforceable. Affirmed. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Frobish, 2021 IL App (3d) 190473-UHolding: Allegations in the underlying complaint that a township employee caused property damage by excavating and digging out a ditch failed to impose a duty to defend under township employee’s individual farm insurance policy. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2018 IL App (1st) 173154-UHolding: The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed; plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured against the underlying complaint because the loss claimed in the underlying complaint is subject to an exclusion. The court held that it would also enter judgment for plaintiff because the underlying complaint does not allege an “occurrence” causing bodily injury within the meaning of the policy. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schmitt, 2021 IL App (5th) 190173-UHolding: The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment of the circuit court where plaintiff had no duty to defend its insured and thus was not stopped from raising policy defenses to coverage for the underlying tort action contained in the amended declaratory action. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Livorsi Marine, Inc. , 222 Ill. 2d 303, 856 N. E. 2d 338 (2006) (the late Keith Carlson)Liability insurer brought action against insureds for a declaratory judgment based on failure to provide timely notice of lawsuits against them. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Stephen A. Schiller, J. , entered judgment for the insurer. Insureds appealed. The Appellate Court, Wolfson, J. , 358 Ill. App. 3d 880, 295 Ill. Dec. 665, 833 N. E. 2d 871, affirmed. Leave to appeal was granted. Holdings: The Supreme Court, Garman, J. , held that:1 if the insurer did not receive reasonable notice of an occurrence or a lawsuit, the policyholder may not recover under the policy, regardless of whether the lack of reasonable notice prejudiced the insurer, overruling Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc. , 294 Ill. App. 3d 801, 229 Ill. Dec. 20, 690 N. E. 2d 1067, and Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Baur’s Opera House, Inc. , 296 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 230 Ill. Dec. Even if you don’t think you’re seriously injured, it’s important to get checked out by a doctor. Exchange information with the other driver. Get their name, address, insurance information, and license plate number. Take pictures of the scene of the accident. This will help you document what happened and build your case if you decide to file a lawsuit. Report the accident to the police. This will create a record of the accident and help you get help if you need it. Contact a car accident lawyer. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and options, and can represent you in court if necessary. What are my rights as a car accident victim in Chicago? As a car accident victim in Chicago, you have the right to:Seek compensation for your medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages. File a lawsuit against the driver who caused your accident. Have your case heard by a jury. What types of damages can I recover in a car accident lawsuit in Chicago? In a car accident lawsuit in Chicago, you may be able to recover the following types of damages:Medical expenses: This includes the cost of ambulance rides, hospital stays, doctor’s appointments, and physical therapy. Lost wages: This includes the wages you lost while you were unable to work because of your injuries. Pain and suffering: This includes compensation for the physical and emotional pain you have endured as a result of your injuries. What types of damages can I recover in a car accident lawsuit in Chicago? In a car accident lawsuit in Chicago, you may be able to recover the following types of damages:Medical expenses: This includes the cost of ambulance rides, hospital stays, doctor’s appointments, and physical therapy. Lost wages: This includes the wages you lost while you were unable to work because of your injuries. Pain and suffering: This includes compensation for the physical and emotional pain you have endured as a result of your injuries. Property damage: This includes the cost of repairing or replacing your vehicle. Punitive damages: These damages are awarded to punish the defendant for egregious or reckless conduct. How long do I have to file a car accident lawsuit in Chicago? The statute of limitations for car accident lawsuits in Illinois is two years. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing your phone number, you agree to receive text messages from Carlson Bier Associates LLC. Message and data rates may apply.