Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home > All Attorneys > Sara R. Strom

Sara R. Strom concentrates her practice in the areas of civil rights and municipal liability, general liability litigation and commercial transportation litigation, serving clients dealing with risk assessment and best practices. She is adept at handling exposure issues and personal injury claims, resolving matters involving catastrophic loss, property damage, premises liability, product liability, insurance coverage, environmental law, and contractual disputes.

Throughout her career, Sara has drafted and argued numerous successful dispositive motions in both state and federal courts. She has represented insurers, excess insurers, motor carriers, transportation and logistics companies, as well as retail and restaurant corporations. Sara has acted as national trial counsel for a product manufacturer supervising defense activities as well as acting as local counsel and primary liaison for a group of five manufacturers analyzing risk, implementing case protocols and developing global defense strategies.

A top-rated attorney among her peers, Sara was selected to the Illinois Super Lawyers® Rising Stars for 2019. She was featured in the December 2017 issue of the DuPage County Bar Association Brief for an article on “The Battle Over Rule 23: Authority v. Precedent.”

When she is not advocating for her clients, Sara is an entrepreneur and the owner of a game company. She loves to travel and is fluent in Romanian and conversant in Spanish and German.

Trial and Case Highlights
  • Sara won a Motion for Summary Judgment in Cook County Circuit Court based on sole proximate cause in a case wherein the plaintiffs sustained injuries when their vehicle collided with a CTA bus and, as a result of that collision, rebounded into a tractor-trailer—allegedly parked in a “no parking zone”—owned and operated by the defendants.

  • On the day of trial in Cook County Circuit Court, Sara won a Motion to Dismiss based on co-employee immunity under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. In this case, the plaintiff, while accompanying his co-employee, was injured during the operation of a lift/elevator located in the defendant’s garage.

  • Sara defended a national grocery chain in a Northern District of Illinois class-action lawsuit involving a plaintiff who alleged that defendant food manufacturers fraudulently marketed, advertised, and charged customers a premium for mass-produced bread products. Plaintiff issued a third-party subpoena to the national grocery chain, a nonparty to the lawsuit, requesting deposition testimony and documents that would have required the disclosure of trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information and require significant time and costs in discovery procedures in order to respond to the same. Plaintiff’s subpoena was an effort to obtain information regarding the grocery chain’s customers, product-related information, detailed retain and online transactions, communications with various wholesalers and product manufacturers, and national sales history. Sara won a Motion to Quash the Subpoena and the Court agreed with every one of her arguments.

  • Sara recently prevailed in a Motion to Sever and Dismiss where one complaint was filed on behalf of two completely unrelated plaintiffs. Their claims requested different relief, involved distinct assessments of liability, arose out of separate events, and involved disparate questions of law and fact. In her motion, Sara argued that Plaintiffs’ Complaint was misjoined, multifarious, and should be severed into two separate causes of action. The motion defeated Plaintiff’s attempt to conflate evidence in the two unrelated cases; and in doing so, Sara created a large impediment in Plaintiff’s pursuit of damages. The court’s favorable ruling allowed the defendant, a large premises owner of one of Chicago’s top attractions, to avoid any consolidated discovery or the presentment of evidence establishing notice of a dangerous condition after two separate events of injury occurred at the same premises in the same month. The two now separated cases, individually, are worth much less than the initial action that was dismissed.

  • In a class-action lawsuit against a large rental property owner alleging failure to maintain rental properties and unlawful retaliation, Sara prevailed in a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint based on the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), which preempts state law causes of action, Section 5/2-606 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure for Plaintiff’s failure to attach documents to a complaint, the Doctrine of Laches, and Section 5/2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure for Plaintiff’s failure to plead sufficient facts to support her claims.

  • Sara recently prevailed in a Motion for Summary Judgment based on proximate cause in a case arising out of a multi-vehicle accident with significant injuries in DuPage County, Illinois. The Court agreed that there were no issues of material fact to be decided, that proximate cause should be determined as a matter of law, and that the defendant’s actions did not proximately cause or contribute the collision.

  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Illinois Bar Association