Lindsay Bowman

Full Profile

Lindsay Bowman concentrates her practice in complex civil litigation and appellate monitoring counsel. In this role, Lindsay works alongside defense counsel to develop trial strategies, monitor trials in person to assist with strategically preserving the record and raising issues for appeal, and handle critical post-trial motions as well as the appeal itself. She has helped achieve significant results, including negotiated settlements, defense verdicts, and the reversal of unfavorable rulings. Lindsay has also defended individuals, public entities, corporations, and insurers in a wide variety of civil matters including personal injury, civil rights violations, employment and discrimination matters, and she has significant experience guiding clients through disputes involving insurance coverage and bad faith litigation.

Prior to concentrating in civil litigation, Lindsay focused her practice in estate planning, tax advisement, and wealth management. With her unique background and experience, Lindsay brings a fresh perspective and creative strategic solutions for clients.

Admissions

• Illinois
• US District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois

Education

• J.D., DePaul University College of Law, 2016
• B.A., Kent State University, 2006

Memberships

• Illinois State Bar Association
• Illinois Appellate Lawyers Association

Experience

Litigation Victories

• Raised an affirmative defense under Section 3-106 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, which immunizes local public entities and employees from liability for injuries occurring on public, recreational property absent a showing of willful and wanton conduct. Here, Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the lakefront path when he rode through an open gate leading to an excavated part of the path. The court agreed the park district was negligent at most, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
• Obtained summary judgment in favor of remote rental car company in involving a claim of negligent entrustment to an intoxicated driver. The court agreed that the statutory exception to the vehicle code which requires rental car companies to verify a renter’s driver’s license at the time of rental applied to our client, allowing them to maintain their business model of completely contactless rentals.

Coverage Victories

• Obtained summary judgment in a declaratory action denying coverage under a watercraft exclusion of a homeowner’s policy. The insureds were riding on an innertube being pulled by a boat when the innertube struck a woman floating nearby. The court agreed that any duty to warn owed by the insureds arose from or was in connection with their use of the innertube, which was an appurtenance to the boat.
• In a declaratory action for denial of coverage where the underlying complaint alleged the insured knowingly provided false statements regarding the defects in his property and took affirmative steps to hide the defects during the sale. The court agreed the complaint did not allege a covered loss and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
• Secured summary judgment on a denial of UIM benefits where the insured was seeking 4x the primary (US 500 thousand) and excess limit (USD 1 million), or USD 6 million. The court agreed the policy contained unambiguous no-stacking language and ruled in favor of the insurer and found it was not acting in bad faith by denying the claim in excess of limits.

Trial Victories

• Obtained a verdict in an amount for less than policy limits on a breach of contract and bad faith case against an insurer for failure to tender its UIM limit. Plaintiff dropped her bad faith claim in exchange for our agreement not to pursue an appeal. 
• Retained as appellate monitoring counsel in a negligence case against an Illinois Police Department where the Plaintiff was stopped for suspected DUI. He was tased by an officer, suffered a heart attack and died as a result. Our pre-trial motion work postured the case for settlement on the eve of trial and saved the insured from a possible excess verdict.
• Retained as appellate monitoring counsel in a claim of negligent misrepresentation of a non-profit adoption agency. We moved the court for a ruling that the insured was entitled to negligence immunity pursuant to an applicable Florida statute changing the burden of proof to willful and wanton. The jury entered a USD 14.5 million verdict, which we got taken away on post-trial motions, based on arguments we raised during the trial.
• Retained as appellate monitoring counsel in a claim alleging violation of Fourth Amendment rights against excessive force and state torts of assault and battery. We assisted defense counsel with critical motions throughout trial and crafting jury instructions framing the issues. We secured a defense verdict and successfully defended against Plaintiff’s motion for new trial.
• Retained as appellate monitoring counsel where the plaintiff had a demand for USD 400 million, alleging negligent hiring/training/retention of certain school board members, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of an incident involving a football coach allegedly using a racial slur towards a student. Our assistance with trial strategy and briefing throughout resulted in a defense verdict. Although plaintiffs appealed the verdict, they abandoned it and the matter was dismissed in favor of the defendant.