Donald Patrick Eckler

One of the most effective risk-management tools available to lawyers is a clearly defined scope of representation. The recent decision of the Court of Appeals of Indiana in Dircks v. Delamater and Razumich & Delamater, P.C. shows that principle while also revealing the litigation risks that can arise when an attorney informally intervenes during an emergency.

The appellate process often turns not on the merits alone, but on a practitioner’s command of procedural nuance. Few areas illustrate this more sharply than cross-appeals. Two recent decisions, Stabosz v. Friedman, 2026 WL 1842953 (Ind. 2026), and Erie Insurance Exchange v. Kalman, 2026 IL App (1st) 240257-U, demonstrate both the flexibility and the unforgiving rigidity of cross-appeal rules.

For more than fifty years, Illinois has stood apart as a “file-and-use” jurisdiction, relying on market competition rather than regulatory approval to govern insurance rates. That framework emerged after the repeal of prior approval laws in 1969 and the lapse of the State’s short-lived open competition statute in 1971.