MOTION FOR MONEY JUDGMENT

200 North Jefferson, LLC ("200 North") and MCZ/Jameson Development Group, LLC ("MCZ/Jameson") (collectively, "Defendants") by their attorneys, Charles H. Wahtola and Jean G. Wine of Stein Ray LLP, for their Motion for Money Judgment, state as follows:

1. On November 25, 2015, this Honorable Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, in which they requested a ruling that Plaintiff, Westfield Insurance Company ("Westfield"), owed Defendants a duty to defend in the litigation known as Board of Managers of Jefferson Tower Condominium Association v. 200 North Jefferson, LLC, et al., Case No. 12 L 480, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County (the "Underlying Litigation").

2. This Honorable Court has requested that the Defendants provide a dollar amount for the fees and expenses incurred by them in the Underlying Litigation so that this Honorable Court may enter a final judgment.

3. Stein Ray LLP represents 200 North and MCZ/Jameson in the Underlying Litigation. However, it also represents Jameson Realty Group, Inc. ("JRG") and Jameson Development, LLC ("Jameson Development") (and, collectively with 200 North and MCZ/Jameson, the "Jameson Defendants"). JRG and Jameson Development are additional insureds under the commercial general liability policies that are the subject of this coverage dispute, but they are not parties hereto.

4. The total amount of billings in the Underlying Litigation from its inception in January 2012 through December 2015 are $324,565.22. Generally speaking, all fees incurred in the Underlying Litigation would have been incurred were 200 North and MCZ/Jameson the only Jameson Defendants named. The exception is with regard to a series of briefing on behalf of JRG and Jameson Development, where Stein Ray attempted to obtain dismissals of those parties via a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as well as the preparation of discovery responses for discovery directed to JRG and Jameson Development. The total fees attributable to those efforts were $24,614.00. Therefore, in the event this Court will only entertain a judgment for fees incurred on behalf of 200 North and MCZ/Jameson, such judgment should be in the amount of $299,951.22. If this Court will enter a judgment for fees incurred on behalf of all Jameson Defendants, such judgment should be $324,565.22.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the affidavit of Jean Wine, the attorney principally responsible for handling the Underlying Litigation, which such affidavit provides support for the judgment requested herein. As discussed in open court on January 6, 2015, neither the affidavit, nor this motion, attach the actual invoices demonstrating the amounts billed in connection with the Underlying Litigation due to privilege concerns. The Jameson Defendants will make those invoices available for in camera review should this Honorable Court wish to review them before ruling.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request a monetary judgment in their favor in the amount of $324,565.22; an order requiring Westfield to pay Defendants' additional defense costs on a contemporaneous basis until the conclusion of the Underlying Litigation; an order stating that the judgment may be amended in the future to include such additional defense costs as are incurred in January 2016 and thereafter; and an order granting any such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

EXHIBIT A

AFFIDAVIT OF JEAN G. WINE

1. My name is Jean G. Wine. I am over the age of 18. I am personally knowledgeable of all of the information set forth in this affidavit and am capable of testifying to same.

2. I am a junior partner at Stein Ray LLP ("Stein Ray"). Stein Ray is a construction litigation law firm in Chicago that specializes in managing, litigating and resolving disputes arising out of large and technically complex construction projects. Stein Ray earned the distinction of being ranked first in the practice of Construction Law by Chambers USA — America's Leading Business Lawyers. It has also been ranked as one of the four best national construction law firms by the Legal 500. Who's Who described Stein Ray as "one of the best construction law firms in the country." Stein Ray is highly specialized and uniquely situated to handle all types of construction disputes.

3. The attorneys that practice at Stein Ray are highly sophisticated construction lawyers. As an example, Steven G.M. Stein is the managing partner of Stein Ray. He has focused his career on construction law for nearly 40 years. Among other achievements, Mr. Stein is the Editor-in-Chief of the nation's leading treatise on Construction Law, Stein "Construction Law" (Mathew Bender, 1986, supplemented annually, 4 volumes); the Editor-in-Chief of the American Institute of Architects' Legal Citator; and the Editor-in-Chief of the Lexis Publishing's Monthly Reporter, Construction Law Digest. The other partners at Stein Ray also share extensive careers focused almost solely on construction law and its ancillary practices (such as insurance coverage).

4. For my part, I have been practicing at Stein Ray since January 2008. Prior to then I practiced general litigation at Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella. Since January 2008,1 have practiced solely in the field of construction law and have worked closely with the senior partners at Stein Ray, in particular Steven G.M. Stein and Stephen E. Ray. I have worked extensively on technically complex construction defect disputes such as that at issue in this case and have substantial experience in this area of the law. For the past three years, I have been identified by Super Lawyers as a "Rising Star." In 2015, I was identified by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company as an Emerging Lawyer, defined as the top two percent of lawyers who are 40 years or younger or practicing law 10 years or less and who have proven themselves professional, ethical and experienced at an early point in their career.

5. I am the handling attorney in the litigation known as Board of Managers of Jefferson Tower Condominium Association v. 200 North Jefferson, LLC, et al., Case No. 12 L 480, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County (the "Underlying Litigation"). In this role, I am familiar with the work performed in the Underlying Litigation, the amounts billed in connection with the Underlying Litigation, and the amounts paid in furtherance of those bills, and by whom.

6. 200 North Jefferson, LLC ("200 North"), MCZ/Jameson Development Group, LLC ("MCZ/Jameson"), Jameson Realty Group, Inc. ("JRG"), and Jameson Development, LLC ("Jameson Development") (collectively, the "Jameson Defendants") are named defendants in the Underlying Litigation. They are also long time clients of Stein Ray. Stein Ray has assisted the Jameson Defendants, their related entities, and their principals on a wide variety of construction disputes in addition to the Underlying Litigation.

7. The Underlying Litigation was filed in January 2012, and Stein Ray has been involved in the Jameson Defendants' defense since that time. The following chart sets forth the attorneys who have billed on this matter since 2012, and their respective rates for 2012 and each year thereafter:

8. The foregoing rates are Stein Ray's usual, customary rates and are reasonable, particularly given the breadth and depth of experience of the attorneys practicing at Stein Ray. These rates are also within the range of what is charged by other firms offering similar services supported by similar expertise in the Chicagoland area.

9. In the interest of managing the Underlying Litigation in the most efficient and economical manner possible, generally speaking, I have handled the day-to-day tasks but have utilized Mr. Clark's assistance for those activities appropriate for an associate that can be done for a lower rate. Such tasks include: preparing and issuing discovery requests; managing and reviewing documents received by other parties and subpoenaed parties; performing legal research as required; drafting motions and briefs; assisting in preparation for depositions; and attending court status and motion hearings. Mr. Wahtola's primary role has been advisory in nature, providing assistance regarding overall litigation strategy. Mr. Wahtola's role will likely expand in the event this case proceeds to trial, given the expected number of witnesses that will be involved.

10. The total amount of billings in the Underlying Litigation from its inception in January 2012 through December 2015 are $324,565.22. I have detailed invoices to support these figures. However, they are not being attached to this affidavit due to their privileged nature. If Westfield agreed to defend the Jameson Defendants, we would then be in a position to share the content of our invoices with Westfield. Absent such agreement, the invoices are not privileged and cannot be attached to this affidavit or given to Westfield. However, I have these invoices in my possession and am ready, willing and able to provide them to Judge Blakely for in camera review should Judge Blakely so request.

11. The invoices, if reviewed, will reflect a complicated construction and design defect case with alleged damages exceeding $4 million. While not necessary to describe each invoice here, as they are being made available to the Court, below are examples of the issues that have made the Underlying Litigation more complex and time consuming than a typical construction defect case.

12. As the invoices will reflect, extensive briefing has already been performed in the Underlying Litigation in an effort to limit the numerous and baseless claims made by Plaintiff against the defendants. Plaintiff is already on the fourth iteration of its complaint. All prior versions were subject to motion practice due to a wide variety of pleading defects. Plaintiffs claims include not only claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and breach of contract, which are typical for construction defect cases, but also additional claims against the Jameson Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and violation of the Chicago Condominium Ordinance. These three claims are completely speculative—at best—and were asserted only to create leverage for the Plaintiff, given that attorneys' fees can be sought, at least pursuant to the Consumer Fraud count. As such, significant effort was expended researching and evaluating the legal viability of these claims and seeking dismissal of same.

13. Discovery has also been more expansive than a typical construction defect case. In July 2015, Plaintiff filed its initial witness disclosures, identifying approximately 250 witnesses to potentially be called at trial. Not surprisingly, the Jameson Defendants objected to this disclosure, as deposing 250 witnesses was not only impossible given the constraints of the then-existing case management schedule, but impractical and overly burdensome from a litigation cost standpoint. The Jameson Defendants were forced to file a motion for a protective order, seeking that the Court order Plaintiff to reduce its witness list to a more manageable scope. That motion remains pending. However, the Jameson Defendants—as a matter of course—were required to subpoena numerous entities identified on Plaintiff's lengthy disclosure. The result was a voluminous document production from a number of third party sources.

14. In addition to the responses to subpoenas issued by the Jameson Defendants, subpoenas issued by Plaintiff to the architect and structural engineer for the project that is the subject of the Underlying Litigation also yielded substantial data. Further, James McHugh Construction Company — one of the defendants in the Underlying Litigation—produced what appeared to be its entire project file. Of course, Plaintiff and the Jameson Defendants themselves also produced documents. This extensive discovery resulted in additional time spent beyond what would normally be expected to manage, review and analyze the production, particularly as required to prepare for depositions.

15. The Jameson Defendants paid the fees charged by Stein Ray in defending the Underlying Litigation — thus indicating the reasonableness of those fees — until such time as a third party insurance company (Cram & Forster) agreed to participate in the Jameson Defendants' defense pursuant to an additional insured tender.

16. The foregoing notwithstanding, due to the risk that Crum & Forster may seek to recoup any amounts paid in the defense of this matter in the event Crum & Forster is found to not have any duty to indemnify the Jameson Defendants, 200 North and MCZ/Jameson seek a judgment for the full value of the fees and expenses incurred in the Underlying Litigation. Of course, their right to collect would be subject to set off to avoid any double recovery.

17. $324,565.22 was incurred on behalf of the Jameson Defendants in the Underlying Litigation. However, only two of the Jameson Defendants—200 North and MCZ/Jameson—are parties to the subject coverage litigation. Nonetheless, JRG and Jameson Development are additional insureds on the commercial general liability policy at issue, and any fees attributable solely to their defense should be included in the judgment. However, if they are not, then such fees should be backed out from the $324,565.22 figure for purposes of entering a money judgment in favor of 200 North and MCZ/Jameson.

18. Generally speaking, all fees incurred in the Underlying Litigation would have been incurred were 200 North and MCZ/Jameson the only Jameson Defendants named. The exception is with regard to a series of briefing on behalf of JRG and Jameson Development, where we attempted to obtain dismissals of those parties via a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as well as the preparation of discovery responses for discovery directed to JRG and Jameson Development. The total fees attributable to those efforts were $24,614.00. Therefore, in the event this Court will only entertain a judgment for fees incurred on behalf of 200 North and MCZ/Jameson, such judgment should be in the amount of $299,951.22. If this Court will enter a judgment for fees incurred on behalf of all Jameson Defendants, such judgment should be $324,565.22.