When a loved one passes away, probate can bring unexpected challenges for surviving spouses. South Carolina law provides important protections to ensure that surviving spouses are not left without support. The elective share petition and the omitted spouse petition are two key statutory remedies that serve to safeguard the rights of surviving spouses in probate proceedings. While similar in purpose, they apply in very different circumstances. Understanding the difference can help you protect your rights or anticipate how an estate may be divided.

Polales Horton & Leonardi LLP is pleased to announce that Michael J. Testa has joined the firm as a Partner in its Chicago office. Mr. Testa brings more than thirteen years of experience representing clients in complex commercial litigation across a wide range of industries including business and real estate disputes, and toxic tort, products liability, premises liability, professional liability and personal injury defense.

In a recent federal court case from the Seventh Circuit, Mesco Manufacturing, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, the Court rejected a particularly egregious attempt at such subterfuge. 7th Cir. Court of Appeals, No. 24-1307 (July 25, 2025). Following a hailstorm in summer 2018, Mesco Manufacturing submitted a claim to its insurer, Motorists Mutual, for roof damage.

Companies that formerly mined limestone or sold products containing it should consider examining their historical insurance coverage now to determine if they have asbestos coverage. Asbestos-related injury claims allege exposure not only to raw asbestos but to asbestos allegedly included in other minerals or in end products, such as joint compound. Modern asbestos claims often pertain to injuries resulting from exposure that occurred as far back as the 1950s or 1960s. Generally, insurance policies issued prior to the mid-1980s cover asbestos bodily injury claims, and those historical insurers will respond to a claim filed today that implicates their old policies.

Maybe. In long-tail claims like asbestos, which implicate multiple policy periods, insurers and policyholders often contend fiercely over the allocation of defense and indemnity among triggered policies. Insurers vie for pro rata allocation, which typically spreads the costs evenly across triggered policies, and possibly across periods where there was no insurance. Under this methodology, each insurer only pays a sliver of the costs, and, in some jurisdictions, the policyholder is on the hook for uninsured periods. Policyholders, in contrast, pursue an “all sums” allocation, which is based on standard policy language requiring each insurer to pay “all sums the policyholder becomes legally obligated to pay. Under this approach, policyholders can pick any triggered policy to cover the entire claim, and thus typically avoid paying anything. Needless to say, the allocation methodology adopted in a particular jurisdiction has monumental financial implications for both insurers and policyholders. The law on allocation differs state to state: some adopt a form of pro-rata allocation, others implement all sums, and still others remain undecided.

It is not uncommon for a defendant to settle a dispute for a sum certain where the plaintiff agrees only to pursue the defendant’s insurer. This settlement option just got trickier in Illinois in Pergament.
When settling a case through the assignment of insurance rights to another party, don’t run afoul of the policy’s “legally obligated to pay” requirement. In ISMIE Mutual Insurance Company v. Pergament, 2025 IL App (1st) 230787, two parties in a negligence suit entered a settlement agreement: Pergament, the defendant, assigned his insurance policy rights to plaintiffs, the Kessels. In exchange, the Kessels fully released him from any obligation to pay the settlement amount.

Polales Horton & Leonardi LLP (PHL) is pleased to announce that Michael J. Philippi has joined the firm as a Partner in its Chicago office. Philippi brings over three decades of experience in high-stakes litigation, including jury trials, appeals, and mediations in state and federal courts. He has served as national and regional counsel for medical device companies in toxic tort cases and has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including oil and gas, real estate, and financial services. His extensive experience includes defending major corporations in complex commercial disputes, environmental claims, and product liability matters. “I am thrilled to welcome my mentor and friend Mike to our team,” said Tim Horton, Co-Founder of Polales Horton & Leonardi. “His reputation for excellence and his track record of success in complex litigation align perfectly with our firm’s commitment to delivering exceptional, efficient, legal services to our clients.”

Polales Horton & Leonardi LLP (PHL) welcomes Floyd Perkins, CPA, JD and LLM as its newest partner in the firm’s Chicago office. For the past 15 years, Floyd has been practicing at a top AmLaw 100 law firm, specializing in complex commercial litigation. He has successfully represented clients in both state and federal courts, as well as in arbitrations across the nation. Additionally, Floyd frequently advises on compliance issues related to charitable organizations and healthcare provider compliance issues. Before transitioning to private practice, he held the position of bureau chief in the Charitable Trust Bureau at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. During his time at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Floyd provided counsel to four Attorneys General on a variety of legal issues. He also led a team of attorneys and accountants in several lawsuits and investigations, actively participating in multiple trials, mediations, and settlements.

Polales Horton & Leonardi LLP (PHL) welcomes Shelby Leonardi as its newest partner in the firm’s Columbia office. Shelby’s experience in complex civil litigation and her familiarity with the federal court system equip her to join the firm’s litigation practice alongside her husband of twenty-two years, Dan Leonardi, and the lawyers in the firm’s Chicago office. PHL focuses on complex civil and criminal litigation, primarily in federal court.

In 2008, the State of Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14 et seq. (“BIPA”). Illinois was one of the first states to enact a law to address and regulate business’s collection of biometric data (Biometrics are unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints, that can be used for automated recognition.) The use of biometric data in business is now widespread and common, which includes such uses as time management, security access, safety, and wellness programs.

Once upon a time, it was reasonably simple to figure out the potential penalties for a criminal offense. In South Carolina, for example, if you were convicted of kidnapping, you would be looking at up to 30 years in prison. S.C. Code § 16-3-910. Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine? Up to 15 years for a first offense. S.C. Code § 44-53-375(b)(1). Stealing a car? Up to 10 years depending on the value of the car. S.C. Code §§ 16-13-30, -420.

It is increasingly common for companies to collect biometric information from their employees and customers. Employers are replacing keycards and physical timesheets, with fingerprint and retina scans. Social media companies harvest facial data through photo-labeling to enhance the user experience and generate more revenue. While companies’ use of biometric identifiers can enhance security and revenue, its use requires companies to at least temporarily collect and store biometric information.