In the complex commercial litigation area, Mr. Ruberry has substantial experience in the trial of major lawsuits.  He has represented clients in some of the largest commercial lawsuits throughout the country.  These cases include:  the Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation; the Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation; and the Liquid Gas Antitrust Litigation.  Mr. Ruberry has tried price fixing cases including the six month trial of the Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation in Houston, Texas.  He also has tried cases involving rule of reason and group boycotts.  In additional, Mr. Ruberry represented the officers and directors of Continental Bank in the Continental Bank Securities Litigation which involved the demise of Penn Square Bank.  

For more than 30 years, Edward F. Ruberry has litigated complex commercial and insurance cases throughout the country.  He has tried large complex cases involving environmental insurance coverage, trade secrets, nuclear power plants and professional liability in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Colorado, New York and Illinois.   During this time, Mr. Ruberry has tried scores of cases to verdict.  For purposes of brevity the following is a list of some of the noteworthy matters that Mr. Ruberry has tired to verdict.  

1.    Pillsbury v. Alton Box – Federal Court, Houston Texas.  Mr. Ruberry represented Pillsbury against 15 defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy case.  After a six month jury trial, Mr. Ruberry obtained a verdict in favor of Pillsbury, which resulted in his clients receiving over $8 million.  

2.    Will v. Comprehensive Accounting – Federal Court, Chicago, Illinois.  Mr. Ruberry represented numerous franchises in a case against Comprehensive Accounting involving claims of group boycott, tie in and breach of contract clause.  After a lengthy trial, the jury returned a verdict for millions of dollars to his client.  

3.    Sergeant and Lundy – State Court, Chicago, Illinois.  Mr. Ruberry represented a Crum & Forster entity in the longest insurance coverage trial in the history of Cook County.  The case involved nuclear power plants in Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois, and required 161 trial days over the course of five years to complete.  The plaintiff sought over $100 million in damages.  The case settled under a protective order for a diminimus amount.  

4.    Wells Fargo v. Kemper – State Court, New York.  Mr. Ruberry tried an environmental coverage case in the New York Supreme Court, Wells Fargo v. Zurich, Index No. 601562/05 wherein he represented Kemper with respect to an environmental policy purchased as additional security on a loan tied to a number of Florida gas stations.  The case was heard before Judge Charles Ramos.  Our firm entered the case after liability had been directed on behalf of the plaintiff against Kemper.  The sole issue on trial was the amount the carrier was required to pay in damages.  The insured argued that damages should be equal to $12 million which represented the loss in fair market value of the property as a result of the environmental contamination, or alternatively $6 million which represented the amount of clean-up costs incurred.  Mr. Ruberry convinced the Court that the insured was entitled to zero dollars in damages resulting in a decisive victory on behalf of our client.  During the trial, the court struck the plaintiff’s expert for attorney misconduct as well as his own misconduct.  

5.    Johnson v. City of New Orleans – State Court, New Orleans, Louisiana.  Mr. Ruberry defended a class action brought against the city of New Orleans by the residents of the “agricultural landfill project” wherein the plaintiff sought tens of millions of dollars for property damage and bodily injury.  The plaintiffs alleged that the exposure to environmental conditions at the site caused these catastrophic losses.  After a lengthy trial, he was able to defeat the class certification.  Shortly, thereafter, we were able to settle the case for a reasonable amount.  

6.    Goodman v. Otis – Federal Court, Denver, Colorado.  Mr. Ruberry obtained a defense verdict on behalf of his client for breach of contract, wherein the plaintiff sought millions of dollars in damages.  He then obtained a liability verdict for his client on its counterclaim based on breach of contract and malicious prosecution which resulted in his clients obtaining millions of dollars.  

7.    CSX Transportation v. Admiral – State Court, Jacksonville, Florida.  CSX brought a suit to obtain coverage against a number of carriers to recover tens of millions of dollars that it had expended to remediate environmental problems at numerous railroad years throughout the country and to obtain reimbursement for settlement for a number of cases involving exposure to chemical and other toxic materials.  After a month long trial, he obtained a defense verdict.  

8.    International Inc. Co. v Employers Casualty – Federal Court, Huntsville, Alabama.  Mr. Ruberry tried a case in Decatur, Alabama on behalf of Westchester, an excess carrier, against a primary carrier for failure to settle within policy limits.  After a one month jury trial, the jury returned a verdict on behalf of Westchester for $750,000.00 plus attorney’s fees, which represents the maximum amount that could be awarded under the insurance contract.  

9.    Kemper v. Broadspire – Chicago, Illinois.  Mr. Ruberry obtained a plaintiff’s verdict for breach of contract and professional negligence on behalf of his client against its MGA. The substantial verdict, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, has been put under seal.  

 
Education
Loyola University School of Law, J.D., 1973
Coe College, B.A. 1969

Other Interests
Editor, Loyola University Law Journal, 1972-1973.

Law Clerk to the Honorable Daniel P. Ward, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois, 1973-1975

Visiting Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology/Chicago-Kent College of Law

Publications

The Defense of Lead Poisoning Claims

Speaker, Synopsis of an Antitrust Case for Combined Illinois and Chicago Bar Association

Comment, Fuentes, the Fourteenth Amendment Held to Require Notice to Hearing prior to Any Repossession of Consumer Property by Means of a State Action, 3 Loyola University Law Journal.451