James P. Gaughan is a commercial litigator with a concentration in class action defense, and also chairs the firm's Electronic Discovery Committee.

He assists a broad base of clients, including insurance companies, financial institutions, and public utilities in jurisdictions throughout the nation with a wide range of commercial disputes. He has led substantial joint defense activity in high stakes litigation.

Experience

Class Action Experience

Mr. Gaughan has significant experience defending alleged class actions, including:

• A series of alleged nationwide and state specific class actions involving the purported entitlement to the payment of general contractor's overhead and profit under homeowner's insurance policies
• Asserted state and nationwide class actions demanding payment under automobile insurance policies for any loss in value to a vehicle despite proper repairs
• Various purported class actions challenging automobile repair estimates prepared by insurance companies
• Several class actions challenging the value of certain automobile insurance coverages and the amount of premiums charged
• Asserted class actions attacking the use of house counsel to defend policyholders under their insurance policies

General Litigation Experience

Mr. Gaughan is a zealous advocate for his clients, defending or prosecuting their interests in courts across the county, including:

• Leading substantial electronic discovery efforts, including data mining, development of record retention plans and supervision of off-shore document review
• Representing power generating companies in connection with climate change litigation
• Defending and prosecuting a host of disputes arising from partnership and limited liability company agreements
• Obtaining a temporary restraining order prohibiting a disgruntled shareholder from blocking an acquisition
• Defending a credit union president in claims of fraud and prosecuting related coverage disputes under a fidelity bond
• Defending challenges to the corporate structure of a family of related companies, including intra-company conspiracy and veil piercing theories
• Litigation on behalf of banks serving as indenture trustees in connection with bond defaults
• Defending an international malpractice action
• Handling leasing disputes for a high-end Michigan Avenue property
• Prosecuting and defending a variety of RICO actions
• Representing architects and engineers in various construction related disputes
• Prosecuting and defending various disputes relating to brokers and salespersons commissions
• Handling post-closing disputes arising from company acquisitions and asset purchases

Illustrative Cases

• Bowers v. State Farm, 403 Ill. App. 3d 173 (1st Dist. 2010) (affirmed dismissal of alleged class action seeking to prohibit an insurance company from employing staff counsel to represent its insureds, with the appellate court finding that it is lawful for an insurance company to employ staff counsel to defend its insureds)
• Muhammad v. Oliver, 547 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirmed, with sanctions later awarded, dismissal of alleged violation of joint venture agreement based on race)
• Ray v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 474220 (S.D.Ind., February 19, 2008) (summary judgment in alleged class action seeking diminished value of automobiles under uninsured motorist insurance coverages)
• Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 348 Ill. App. 3d 846 (1st Dist. 2004) (affirming dismissal of alleged class action seeking diminished value of automobiles in connection with third party claims against an insurance company)
• A.I. Credit Corp. v. Hartford Computer Group, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 588 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (sustaining in all material respects RICO action of lenders against loan broker and its officer)