Kenneth M. Gorenberg

Kenneth M. Gorenberg

Partner

T: (312) 201-2556
F: (312) 416-4554
gorenberg@wildman.com

Download V-Card


Practice Areas:

Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Investigations
Product Liability


Education:

University of Chicago Law School, J.D. 1990

University of Pennsylvania, B.A. 1987, cum laude




Print this page

Kenneth M. Gorenberg

Kenneth Gorenberg is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wildman Harrold. A sophisticated litigator and respected advisor, Ken applies his breadth of experience to prevent unwanted surprises in complex situations. He does not just react to existing legal issues but also looks ahead and offers practical solutions that help prevent business and legal problems from arising. His insurance practice spans a broad spectrum of complex matters for both insurers and policyholders. In addition to litigating both insurance coverage and insurance business disputes, Ken performs sophisticated insurance coverage analyses to help companies understand and manage the risks associated with their existing operations as well as the risks they may acquire through corporate transactions. Ken has also built a significant practice defending manufacturers and premises owners in “bet the company” asbestos personal injury litigation in Illinois and across the United States. As national asbestos counsel for a leading manufacturer, he has achieved the rare success of his client never paying a penny to a plaintiff. He also represents financial institutions, hotels, and real estate investors in a variety of commercial litigation matters. With this broad base of experience, Ken is able to construct creative, pragmatic solutions to protect his clients’ interests.

Representative Experience:

  • Serves as national counsel for all asbestos-related matters for a Fortune 500 company and, as an extension of the in-house law department, provides legal advice tailored to the company’s unique business needs. Ken’s comprehensive approach has included a thorough internal investigation of the product history, engagement and consultation with various experts who can help defend the products, and jury simulations in key venues. The company faced more than 200 lawsuits, but Ken’s sophisticated and innovative strategies resulted in dismissals of every single case. Four years after it was dragged into asbestos litigation, the company is now out of it, having paid nothing to any of the plaintiffs.
  • Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of a $20 million lender liability case in federal court in Ohio. Through diligent discovery, Ken disproved allegations that his client, M Credit, Inc. (f/k/a Transamerica Business Credit Corp.), had misapplied payments to manufacture defaults and then used those defaults as an excuse not to lend more money to the plaintiff. This summary judgment win upheld contract language, common to many commercial loan agreements, that is extremely important to the business of all lending institutions.
  • Defending allegations that Forum Insurance Company must indemnify Reliance Insurance Company for losses on $40 million of surety bonds that Reliance issued for Forum’s former parent company, Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. This multifaceted matter involves complex issues of contract law and insurance regulation as well as civil, bankruptcy, and appellate procedure. Over the years, the case has moved among four courts in Delaware and Pennsylvania, and the firm continues to combat the merits of the case.
  • Represented a multi-billion dollar, publicly traded company in an internal audit to investigate allegations of financial mismanagement. Through employee interviews across the United States and Europe, as well as work by forensic accountants and private investigators, the wrongdoing was discreetly identified and corrected. No coverage of the allegations became public and the company continues to operate successfully today.
  • Successfully represented International Surplus Line Insurance Company, one of dozens of defendants in a major environmental insurance coverage case brought by a public utility. Successfully petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to hear an interlocutory appeal and wrote the briefs leading the court to “reverse the trial court on general due process grounds under both the Illinois and Federal Constitutions.” Both of these achievements made the front page of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and helped ensure every litigant’s right to the full and fair opportunity to be heard.

Reported Decisions:

  • Copier v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 138 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 1998)
  • Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co., 158 Ill.2d 218, 633 N.E.2d 675 (1994)

Publications And Presentations:

  • Co-author, “Coverage for Employment Claims Under Other [Non-EPL] Insurance Policies,” The Practitioner’s Guide to Defense of EPL Claims, Chapter 2, ABA, 2005, Ellis B. Murov, editor.


Professional Associations:

American Bar Association (Litigation Section, Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, Business Law Section)

Defense Research Institute


Bar Admissions:

Illinois Supreme Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Trial Bar member), Central District of Illinois, Northern District of Indiana, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Western District of Wisconsin


Personal Information:

Born and raised on the east coast, Ken fell in love with Chicago during law school and has been here ever since. In order to benefit his adopted community, he serves as corporate counsel to a non-profit organization that raises funds to benefit local parks. Ken’s pro bono legal work has also included representing the plaintiff in a civil rights case against local officials and representing an indigent defendant on appeal from a conviction for first-degree murder. Outside his practice, Ken, along with his wife and three children, also supports a variety of community and national charitable causes, primarily in the areas of education and public health.


Please be aware, if you are not a current client of the firm, the attorney-client privilege does not exist and therefore confidential or sensitive information should not be sent in this email message.

I Understand
Cancel