Practice Areas

Insurance Recovery: 

We have a breadth of experience in representing commercial policyholders in disputes over insurance coverage. Our experience includes claims arising under CGL, product liability, D&O, E&O, ERISA, employment practices liability, intellectual property, fidelity, environmental, commercial credit, civil rights, and assorted other commercial coverages. In addition to actively litigating coverage suits, Marion regularly counsels commercial policyholders and assists them in negotiated insurance recoveries without litigation.

Click Here for Representative Insurance Coverage Matters
  • Evanston Ins. Co. v. Natural Polymers, LLC, No. 2019 CH 746 (Ill. Cir. Ct. DuPage Cty June 12, 2020): The court ruled in favor of our client-insured that its general liability insurer owed a duty to defend claims of personal injury and property damage, arising from vapors allegedly off-gassed from insulation material manufactured by the client. The court rejected the insurer’s contention that either an “Absorption, Ingestion, and Inhalation Exclusion” or an “Impaired Property Exclusion” excused it from defending the client-insured.
  • American Inter-Fidelity Corp. v. Hodge, No. 18-cv-4604, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50508 (N.D. Ill. March 24, 2020): The court ruled in favor of our client, denying the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that an exclusion for injuries to the insured’s “employees,” but not independent contractors, barred coverage for bodily injuries sustained by the client truck driver, while riding as a passenger in the insured’s truck.
  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyds’ v. Safeguard Holdings, L.P., No. 2014 CH 6400 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Dec. 10, 2014): The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insured as to the insurer’s duty to defend a suit brought by the State Attorney General under a consumer fraud statute. The court rejected the insurer’s argument that the relief sought by the AG in the underlying suit did not constitute covered “damages” under a combined E&O/ CGL policy. The dispute then settled in mediation.
  • Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 2013 CH 01508 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. July 3, 2014): The court granted summary judgment to the insured as to the insurer’s duty to defend under a D&O policy. The court rejected the insurer’s contention that coverage was barred by a professional services exclusion.
  • 24 Hour Fitness v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. CV 11-8088-GHK(RZx) (U.S. Dist. C.D. Cal. March 21, 2013): The court granted summary judgment to the policyholder that its D&O insurer was obligated to pay fees incurred by the insured in defending consumer class actions. The court rejected the insurer’s defenses that the claims were barred by exclusions for contractual liability and “unfair trade practices.” Mediation then resulted in settlement before commencement of the damages phase of the suit.
  • Millard Chicago Window Cleaning, LLC v. Mesirow Ins. Services, Inc., No. 05 L 1507 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. May 1, 2009 & May 21, 2010): The court entered a series of summary judgment orders in favor of the insured, against its insurance broker for malpractice arising out of erroneous information supplied by the broker on the insurance application.
  • Indiana Regional Council of Carp. Pension Tr. Fund v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 2:06-CV-32 PS, 2007 WL 683795 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ind. March 2, 2007): The court granted summary judgment for the insured on claims under a fidelity bond, rejecting the insurer’s denial of coverage based on the policy’s suit limitations clause.
  • Nvidia Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 04 C 7178, 2005 WL 2230190 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2005): The court granted summary judgment in favor of the policyholder that the insurer had duty to defend claims sounding in tortious interference pursuant to the Personal Injury Liability coverage of a CGL policy.
  • U.S. Gypsum v. Admiral, 643 N.E.2d 1226 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1994), and U.S.F. & G. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., 578 N.E.2d 926 (Ill. 1991) – Marion served as policyholder’s counsel in these two leading cases establishing insurance coverage for asbestos-related property damage claims in Illinois. Her roles included principal draftsmanship of the Supreme Court brief in Wilkin and, as to U.S. Gypsum, serving as trial counsel, participating in appellate argument, and serving as the principal author of the briefs in the trial, appellate, and Supreme Courts.

General Commercial and Contractual Litigation: 

We have extensive experience in representing businesses in a wide variety of contractual and commercial disputes arising, for example, from distribution contracts, purchase agreements, licensing agreements, and partnership and LLC agreements. 

Click Here for Representative General Commercial and Contractual Litigation
  • Miller v. Tamerlane Homeowners’ Association (Appeal of Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.), 2020 IL App (1st) 191425-U: The Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s denial of a petition to enforce an attorneys’ lien brought by the plaintiff’s former attorneys against our clients and other defendants to the suit.
  • Tamlyn v. BlueStone Advisors, LLC, no. 17-cv-1893, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68473; 2018 WL 1920184 (N.D. Ill. April 24, 2018): The court dismissed claims brought against our client asserted by its former employee under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The plaintiff claimed that the client, an insurance brokerage firm, had improperly accessed an internet-based account that he maintained via a government website, created in connection with the Affordable Care Act’s government “marketplace” for employer group health plans.
  • Erie Wells, LLC v. Debevic’s, LLC, No. 2015 CH 16230 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., March 23, 2017 & May 24, 2017): Marion represented the defendant/ minority owner in a dispute over the client’s right under an LLC’s Operating Agreement for advancement of its fees in defending against the suit. In the cited orders, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the client/defendant, rejecting the arguments by the majority owners who sought to deprive the defendant of advancement.
  • 540 N. LaSalle, LLC v. Inter-Track Partners, LLC, No. 2009 L 327 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Jan. 22, 2016) – This lawsuit arose from a commercial real estate lease in which Marion served as trial counsel for the defendant-tenant. Following a bench trial, the court awarded the landlord less than $9,000 of the landlord’s $6 million in claims.
  • General Citrus International, Inc. v. Remien, No. 04 C 6402, 2009 WL 483855 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2009) – Marion represented the plaintiff-creditor in this suit to enforce the guaranty of subordinated debt. The case settled shortly before trial in an amount exceeding the guaranteed indebtedness, following grants of motions in the client’s favor for partial summary judgment and in limine.
  • 600 Fairbanks Ct. Dev. Co. v. Rosenberg, No. 06 CH 25655 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Aug. 9, 2007) – Marion served as an attorney for the plaintiff, real estate developer, against its former manager for breaches of fiduciary duties. In the cited ruling, the court denied the former manager’s motion seeking advancement of his defense costs under the indemnification provisions of the parties’ LLC agreement. Marion had the principal role in drafting the briefs and arguing on behalf of the developer on the advancement dispute.

Class Actions and Consumer Disputes:        

Marion has considerable experience in defending individual and class claims asserted on behalf of consumers.  She defends statutory actions arising under both state and federal consumer protection laws, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as well as common law claims arising in tort, contract, or alleged fraud. 


Click Here for Representative Class Action and Consumer Disputes


  • Defending various Chicago-area AutoNation dealerships in suits brought by customers arising out of vehicle purchases, including allegations of defective products brought under the warranty law and Consumer Fraud Act and allegations arising out of the financing of such purchases. In addition to defending the dealers on the merits in lawsuits asserting such claims, Marion also represented the dealers in arbitration-related disputes – including motions to enforce contractual arbitration clauses, the actual arbitrations, and post arbitral litigation to enforce successful arbitral awards. See, e.g., Anderson v. Golf Mill Ford, Inc., 890 N.E.2d 1023 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2008) (affirming denial of consumer’s petition to vacate arbitral award in dealer’s favor).
  • Barnes v. AIMCO Hyde Park Tower, LLC, No. 1-09-85 (App. Ct. Aug. 21, 2009), aff’g, No. 08 CH 29092 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Jan. 7, 2009) – Enforcing arbitration clause in named plaintiff’s lease to dismiss putative class action filed pursuant to Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance.
  • Miller v. Ellis, No. 08 L 353 (Ill. Cit. Ct. Cook Cty. July 24, 2009) – Dismissing putative class action under Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance because defendants’ full tender of damages to named plaintiff mooted dispute.
  • Perry v. First National Bank, No. 05 C 1470, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23100 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2005), aff’d 459 F.3d 816 (7th 2006) and Bonner v. CorTrust, No. 2:05-CV-137 PS, 2006 WL 1980183 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ind. July 12, 2006) – Dismissing putative class actions arising under Fair Credit Reporting Act’s provisions governing accessing of consumer credit reports.

Employment Matters: 

Marion has tried cases, handled appeals, and advised clients as to the enforcement of restrictive covenants, misappropriation of trade secrets, breaches of fiduciary duties, and related doctrines involving the departure of employees and break-up of businesses.

She also has defended businesses in suits arising under federal employment discrimination statutes (including Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and ADEA) both at the agency and court level, represented employers in wage and hour suits, and defended employment-related claims arising under common law doctrines, including claims for breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.