JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 12 L 4748 Honorable Marguerite A. Quinn, Judge Presiding. JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Cunningham concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 Plaintiff, The Northern League of Professional Baseball Teams (plaintiff or Northern League), appeals the circuit court's judgment entered in favor of defendants, Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Americus & Farkas, LLP, and Steven Leech, after a jury trial on plaintiff's legal malpractice claim. On appeal, plaintiff contends that a new trial is warranted where the court below (1) improperly allowed witnesses to testify that they would not have signed a contract containing an exit fee provision; (2) improperly barred as hearsay testimony that an attorney told the witness an attempt to enforce the expulsion provision in the league agreement would be futile; (3) erroneously found that plaintiff failed to disclose all of the league agreements its expert relied on in his opinion; (4) erred in finding that defendants' expert witnesses were qualified to testify as experts in this case; (5) gave jury instructions that precluded the jury from finding defendants liable for legal malpractice, and improperly allowed defendants to argue that plaintiff waived its legal malpractice claim where it entered into a settlement agreement with defendants; and (6) erroneously submitted special interrogatories to the jury that were misleading, confusing, and substantially prejudicial to plaintiff. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 2 JURISDICTION
¶ 3 The trial court entered a final judgment upon the jury's verdict on May 9, 2017. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, which the trial court denied on September 26, 2017. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal that same day. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and 303 (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from final judgments entered below.
¶ 4 BACKGROUND
¶ 5 The following facts are relevant to the issues on appeal. Plaintiff, organized as a South Dakota corporation in 1993, operated as an independent baseball league unaffiliated with major league baseball. Independent leagues field their own teams, sign their players, and govern themselves. Plaintiff filed its legal malpractice action against defendants on May 2, 2012. In its first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to include a damages provision in the league agreement that would impose $1 million in liquidated damages on teams that voluntarily withdrew from the league. Plaintiff alleged that Gary, Kansas City, Fargo, and Winnipeg gave notice that they would depart the league after the 2011 season to join a rival association, and as a result of defendants' malpractice, plaintiff did not receive compensation "upon the mass exodus of fifty percent of the League's membership." The departures caused plaintiff to suffer devastating financial losses and eventually, the league ceased operations. Plaintiff sought as compensatory damages "the $4 million that the Northern League should have been able to collect from" the departing teams, but for defendants' malpractice. During the time period relevant to the lawsuit, plaintiff was comprised of these four teams, as well as teams from Joliet, Lake County, Rockford, and Schaumburg. ¶ 6 At the trial, Richard Ehrenreich, a lawyer and owner of the Schaumburg and Lake County teams, testified that in 1993, plaintiff "never had any real competition" and "[t]eams weren't leaving the Northern League to go anywhere because there weren't any other independent leagues." By 2005, however, other leagues had come into existence so plaintiff's teams began to discuss the concept of exit fees, which would require exiting teams to pay an amount as liquidated damages. ¶ 7 As the league started having these discussions, 4 of plaintiff's 12 teams left the league. According to Ehrenreich, the exit fee discussions "may have been what sped up those four teams leaving that year. They didn't want to have to deal with that in a league agreement." Ehrenreich testified that after the four teams left, the remaining league members "were panicking" because they "didn't see it coming." They determined that the league agreement should have an exit fee provision. Ehrenreich drafted an addendum to the league agreement (the Agreement of Eight), and all of the remaining teams signed the agreement. The Agreement of Eight provided as follows:
"Any Team that voluntar[ily] terminates its membership in the Northern League for any reason shall reimburse the remaining Teams for all damages caused by such departure. It is acknowledged that the exact amount of damages suffered by the remaining Teams will be difficult to proof [
sic] or ascertain, and therefore, the
terminating Team shall pay to the remaining Teams as liquidated damages the sum of $2 million or the Current Membership Expansion Fee, whichever is greater."
¶ 8 In 2007, the Calgary and Edmonton teams left the league. Ehrenreich testified that plaintiff filed suit against them based on the Agreement of Eight exit fee provision. While the suit was pending, the Gary team was sold to attorney Pat Salvi. Salvi offered to take the case against Calgary and Edmonton on a contingency fee basis so the league could save money. Steven Leech, an associate at Salvi's firm, sent an e-mail to the league's board informing them that he "would be one of the attorneys principally responsible for pursuing the case against Calgary and Edmonton." ¶ 9 Ehrenreich testified that some time in 2009, Salvi advised the board to settle the suit. They "didn't ask a lot of questions" because they "were getting ready to start a season. It was just kind of a nuisance at that point ***." Ehrenreich did not remember much about the situation, only that the defendants were "very litigious" and had threatened counterclaims against plaintiff. Also, "there were procedural matters involved, problems with the lawsuit *** and we were provided with a settlement agreement." Pursuant to the agreement, Calgary and Edmonton did not pay any money, but they did return their stock. ¶ 10 In January 2009, plaintiff looked for outside counsel to assist in changing its structure. Leech, who now worked with the firm of Gozdecki & Del Giudice, LLP, offered his services. Plaintiff retained Leech and the firm to draft a new league agreement. Ehrenreich testified that the owners never discussed "doing away with an exit fee provision altogether," and Leech was not told to "do[ ] away" with the fee. To keep attorney fees low, the league's commissioner, Clark Griffin, provided Leech with a first draft of the agreement. This draft did not contain a liquidated damages/exit fee provision. Leech submitted his first draft in March 2009. His draft
attempt to collect the exit fee." When asked whether plaintiff could have filed a lawsuit or for arbitration against Winnipeg, Gary, Kansas City, and Fargo, based on the existing agreement, Ehrenreich answered that "we could have thrown money at it, but we were told it was a loser" from "what we were advised by lawyers." He stated that they did look into enforcing the league agreement's expulsion fee provision against the teams, and they hired a lawyer, but his understanding was that they "didn't have the number of directors. We didn't have a quorum. We only had three directors." ¶ 19 Robert Leib testified as plaintiff's expert at trial. Leib, who also is a certified public accountant and was a worldwide partner at Arthur Andersen, taught sports law at Marquette University for three years. He has worked in the sports and entertainment industries for over 30 years, advising clients in the areas of finance and tax. He developed a significant business working with major and minor league sports teams and published books on major and minor league leases. The trial court found him qualified to testify as an expert "with the following limitations":
"[D]efense contends that the plaintiff has not disclosed various league agreements as a basis for Leib's opinion and they allege that nondisclosure is a violation of Rule 213(f)(3). And what I'm referring to here is the footnote, it's referred to by all the parties as footnote eight in the plaintiff's motion in opposition to defendant's motion
in limine No. 17. *** On April 14th, plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to defendant's motion
in limine No. 17. There is a footnote in that motion listing 11 baseball league agreements that reportedly Mr. Leib relied upon in formulating his expert opinion ***.
The subject agreements contained in footnote eight were never specifically disclosed in any of those documents. During his deposition, *** Mr. Leib specifically named five league
agreements in reference to the subject exit fee provisions, none of which are contained in footnote eight. The plaintiff's 213(f)(3) disclosures are similarly silent regarding those 11 agreements contained in footnote eight. ***
This court disagrees that 213(f)(3) only requires a general disclosure of documents or an all-encompassing statement of documents by the witness that throughout his career he has seen and worked on many professional sports league and team organizational legal structure. *** The defense requested the interrogatory and it wasn't until the eve of trial that the defense was informed, specifically informed of the significance of those 11 agreements listed in footnote 8.
It is this Court's opinion that the defense is absolutely prejudiced by this omission and, therefore, Mr. Leib will be barred from testifying about those 11 agreements."
The court also barred Leib from testifying based on certain paragraphs contained in his second affidavit, which was disclosed 14 days prior to trial, because that information did not merely set forth logical corollaries of his previously disclosed general opinions. It found that "[t]he defense would be prejudiced at this late date by new opinions expressed therein." ¶ 20 Leib testified that an "automatic trigger" was needed because otherwise, no process exists to levy damages or sanctions on a team that is "just not go[ing] to play in the league," which would result in "a somewhat chaotic situation." Leib explained that "[t]he strength of a league is in the stability and continuity of its member teams" and one way to provide that stability is "to create a deterrence for anybody leaving the league which can damage the league and in some cases be catastrophic to the league." Leib testified that having an expulsion provision like the one here is not enough. Instead, what is needed in an agreement is an exit provision with an automatic trigger. He stated that in reviewing league agreements in "the IHL, MISL, MSL, Texas
expertise could be addressed in cross-examination and the jury will weigh his testimony accordingly, the trial court deemed Leydig qualified to testify as an expert in the case. ¶ 26 Leydig testified that liquidated damages provisions "in general are very common. They exist in all kinds of contracts." In his practice, he has seen such provisions, and also has drafted and reviewed them. From his experience, Leydig is familiar with the law relating to liquidated damages clauses. Based on his experience in drafting contracts and his review of the documents in this case, Leydig disagreed with Leib's conclusion that Leech or his firm breached the standard of care. Leech communicated with the owners and based his drafts on that communication. Leech did not "go off on a tangent" or do "something he was not supposed to do." Leech "shared [his work] with the clients repeatedly. The clients talked about it, they exchanged about it, and it became quite clear to me that not only had he in the first instance done what he was asked to do, but that then was cemented, in effect, by the clients reading it and confirming that there were no problems with what he did." Leydig concluded that Leech's work met the standard of care. On cross-examination, Leydig acknowledged that he had no experience in sports law, nor had he ever drafted a sports league agreement. ¶ 27 After deliberations, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal.
Defendants argue that plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims against defendants but cites no authority in support of their position. A bare contention that fails to cite any authority is waived for consideration on appeal. Olive Portfolio Alpha, LLC v. 116 West Hubbard Street, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 160357, ¶ 42.
¶ 28 ANALYSIS
¶ 29 I. Evidentiary Rulings
¶ 30 Plaintiff challenges numerous evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. Generally, evidence is admissible if it has a tendency to make the existence of any consequential fact more or less probable than without the evidence. Smith v. Silver Cross Hospital, 339 Ill. App. 3d 67, 73-74 (2003). The relevance of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's determination absent an abuse of discretion. Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 92 (1995). An abuse of discretion occurs where no reasonable person would take the view of the trial court. In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439, 460 (2008). Even if error occurs, reversal is not warranted unless the error resulted in "substantial prejudice affecting the outcome of the trial." Id.
¶ 31 A. Testimony of Owners Salvi and Katz
¶ 32 Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of owners Salvi and Katz, who stated they would not have signed an agreement containing an exit fee provision. We must consider the relevance of this testimony to determine whether error occurred. See Brown v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 2017 IL App (1st) 161918, ¶ 12 (finding that pursuant to the rules of evidence, "all relevant evidence generally is admissible, and evidence that is not relevant is not admissible"). ¶ 33 To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, plaintiff must prove that (1) defendants owed plaintiff a duty of due care arising from the attorney-client relationship, (2) defendants committed a negligent act or omission constituting a breach of that duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused damages to plaintiff. Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, 222 Ill. 2d 218, 225-26 (2006). The right to recovery is premised on the fact that a plaintiff "would have disagreed, finding that whether she would have chosen the increased coverage was speculative where she had "rejected bodily injury liability insurance in the same amount in which she now seeks" uninsured/underinsured coverage. Id. Linton did not involve Rules 602 or 701, nor did the court consider the relevancy of plaintiff's testimony that she would have sought more coverage. The court merely found the plaintiff's arguments unconvincing because they consisted of self-serving speculation and were contradicted by the record. See id. ¶ 38 Linton is inapposite. Neither Linton nor the other cases plaintiff cites as support involve the relevancy of testimony regarding a disputed provision in a contract. The intent of the parties regarding the propriety of a provision is "clearly relevant in the formation of a contract." Lundberg v. Church Farm, Inc., 151 Ill. App. 3d 452, 458-59 (1986). Here, to determine whether defendants committed malpractice by failing to include an automatic exit fee provision in the agreement, the jury had to consider the parties' intent regarding exit fees. Plaintiff has not cited any authority stating that evidence of such intent cannot be relevant or admissible just because the parties did not have an actual agreement containing the disputed provision. Of course, the jury is not required to believe Salvi's or Katz's testimony. However, the credibility of these owners, and the weight assigned to their testimony, is a matter left for the jury to determine. Redmond v. Socha, 216 Ill. 2d 622, 652 (2005).
¶ 39 B. Limitations on Ehrenreich's Testimony
¶ 40 Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred when it prevented Ehrenreich from testifying why plaintiff chose not to sue Gary, Kansas City, Fargo, and Winnipeg for liquidated damages under the agreement's expulsion provision. Specifically, Ehrenreich sought to testify about the legal advice attorney Greenberg gave concerning enforcement of the agreement and his any error that may have occurred was harmless. Roberts v. Sisters of Saint Francis Health Services, Inc., 198 Ill. App. 3d 891, 902 (1990). ¶ 43 Plaintiff also contends that the trial court improperly limited Ehrenreich's testimony about what he would have done if the league agreement contained an automatic exit fee provision. Plaintiff argues that Ehrenreich "sought to testify about whether Plaintiff would have sued to recover liquidated damages from the Departing Owners, rather than agreeing to a 'walk-away' settlement, if the League Agreement contained an exit fee provision." Plaintiff contends that this testimony was necessary to rebut defendant's argument that plaintiff would have been in the same position, even with the exit fee provision, because the departing teams would have refused to pay the fee in this situation. ¶ 44 The following exchange occurred at trial as Ehrenreich testified:
"Q. Suppose that you had gotten the exit fee you wanted in the agreement, the one you're saying wasn't there. Wouldn't you have had the same Hobson's choice?
A. No.
Q. Why not?"
Defense counsel objected, and the trial court held a sidebar where the following occurred:
"MR. MILLER [PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we filed a lengthy motion
in limine asking that the defendants not be allowed to have team owners testify regarding what they would have done if a different provision had existed within the—had been drafted in the league agreement.
We fought that motion very hard. We lost that motion, and the Court said, you know what, I'm going to let people testify to what they would have done if the circumstances were different.
I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We're just asking Mr. Ehrenreich if the exit fee provision had been put in the agreement, that you say should have been in there, what would have happened. ***
MR. SIPRUT [PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY]: Plus one additional point. One of the main arguments they have made in this case since day one, and they are making it today, the league couldn't have collected the money from these guys anyway because even if the exit fee provision that we're complaining about was in there, the same thing could have happened. The departing teams could have said, forget it, we're not giving you anything. ***
All we're trying to do is respond to that by saying, why is that wrong? What would you have done if you had the exit fee? Why wouldn't it have been a Hobson's choice?"
¶ 45 Defendants' counsel objected, arguing Ehrenreich's answer that he would have pursued a lawsuit if the agreement had contained an exit fee provision called for him to give his opinion on a legal conclusion—whether the exit fee provision would have been enforceable, "among other factors." This exchanged followed:
MR. SIPRUT: The question of whether it is legally enforceable is one thing. The question that was asked of Mr. Ehrenreich *** in his capacity as a lay witness—
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. SIPRUT: —was don't you have a Hobson's choice. You're going to play baseball or you're going to sue. That sounds like a problem.
In his capacity as a layperson, [Ehrenreich] said, yeah, we have to play baseball. [Defendants' counsel's] argument is now going to be, well, no proximate cause.
THE COURT: In his capacity as a layperson what's he going to say to your question?
MR. SIPRUT: I'm going to say, in your capacity as a team owner, as a guy who knows nothing about sports law, by his own account, nothing, less than anyone in this room, don't you have the same problem even if you get this exit fee *** why do you think you don't have the same problem, Mr. Ehrenreich.
Answer, as a business owner, the decision I would make as a business owner is to sue. Even if that means not playing baseball we're going for it.
MR. MILLER: You cut him off, we'll cut him off, whatever.
THE COURT: I'm going to let just that in over your objection. Just that.
MR. SIPRUT: Thank you, Your Honor."
The proceedings continued in front of the jury, and the following exchange occurred between plaintiff's counsel and Ehrenreich as a witness:
Q. *** The question is, well, what if the agreement had the clause that you say is missing, this exit fee provision. Don't you have the same problem?
MR. SULLIVAN [DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEY]: Objection to form. Foundation. Speculative.
THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer. Do you understand the question.
A. I do. No, we don't have the same problem.
Q. Why?
A. If we had an exit fee, we would have filed a lawsuit against the departing teams and made a legal attempt to collect the exit fee.
Q. Why don't we just end it right there then. I didn't mean—I was making sure he didn't say anything more. ***."
¶ 46 Plaintiff wanted Ehrenreich to testify that he would have sued the departing teams if the league agreement contained an exit fee provision, and that is what he testified to in court over defendants' objection. Although plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly limited Ehrenreich's testimony on this issue, plaintiff has not indicated what further statements Ehrenreich wanted to make. As the above exchange shows, the trial court asked plaintiff's counsel during the sidebar what he would like to ask Ehrenreich on the stand, and Ehrenreich's expected answer. The trial court allowed plaintiff's counsel to question Ehrenreich as counsel requested. We find no error here.
See
Lopez v.
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 375 Ill. App. 3d 637, 654 (2007) (finding that "[a] party cannot complain of error to which that party consented").
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior litigation involving Ehrenreich but does not identify that evidence or provide any analysis on why such evidence substantially prejudiced plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has forfeited consideration of this issue on appeal. Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 373 Ill. App. 3d 838, 854-55 (2007).
¶ 47 C. Limitation of Plaintiff's Expert Leib's Testimony
¶ 48 Plaintiff next contends that the trial court improperly limited the testimony of its expert, Leib. Plaintiff argues that Leib should have been allowed to testify regarding (1) all of the league agreements he relied on in forming his opinion, (2) the differences between affiliated and unaffiliated sports leagues, and (3) his experience teaching exit fees at Marquette University Law School. The trial court limited this testimony because plaintiff did not disclose the opinions, or the basis of the opinions, as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007). every league agreement he has seen throughout his career. The latter opinion strongly implies that every league agreement contains an exit fee provision. Plaintiff acknowledges as much when it argues that Leib's testimony
"as to how
every league agreement for unaffiliated sports leagues he had seen over his long career contained an exit fee provision *** would have greatly bolstered Leib's credibility when he testified as to the ultimate issue in the case,
i.
e., that Defendants breached the applicable standard of care by not including an exit fee provision in Plaintiff's League Agreement."
Defendants, who formulated their trial strategy based on Leib's disclosure of seven agreements as the basis of his opinion, would undoubtedly have been prejudiced by this new disclosure on the eve of trial. ¶ 54 The trial court also barred, as a violation of Rule 213, Leib's opinion testimony on the difference between affiliated and unaffiliated sports leagues because it was first disclosed in his second affidavit, "a mere 14 days prior to the commencement of this trial." However, plaintiff argues that in his expert report Leib described the distinctions in the organizational structures of these leagues and the more specific statements contained in his affidavit constitute logical corollaries to his disclosed opinions. "A witness may elaborate on a disclosed opinion as long as the testimony states logical corollaries to the opinion, rather than new reasons for it."
Lopez, 375 Ill. App. 3d at 645. The elaboration "must be encompassed by the original opinion."
Id. ¶ 55 Plaintiff wanted Leib to testify more fully that the organizational structure of unaffiliated leagues requires exit fee provisions while the structure of affiliated leagues renders such
provisions superfluous. Essentially, the proposed testimony concerns differences in the ability of teams to unilaterally withdrawal from each league and the sanctions imposed for such conduct. Plaintiff, however, does not discuss how this testimony is a logical corollary of Leib's statements regarding the organizational structures and business models of each league. In this section of his report, Leib does not mention exit fee provisions or anything that would imply the need for unaffiliated leagues to require such provisions in order to prevent unilateral withdrawal. Leib also makes no statements regarding withdrawal from affiliated leagues and only generally states that, for affiliated leagues, the professional baseball agreement "provides sanctions for membership related breaches as well as disciplinary infractions." ¶ 56 Rule 213 requires "strict compliance" and therefore, " 'you have to drop down to specifics.' "
Sullivan, 209 Ill. 2d at 109-10. As a result, we find that the trial court's decision to bar this testimony as a new opinion in violation of Rule 213 was not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, plaintiff provides only general citations to authority to support its position on this issue, and cites no authority on the issue of Leib's testimony about his teaching experience on exit fee provisions. Plaintiff forfeits its argument where it does not comply with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018) (requiring briefs to provide analysis with citations to authority).
Although Leib disclosed five agreements during his deposition, the record shows that the trial court subsequently allowed him to testify based on seven agreements. --------
¶ 57 D. Defendants' Expert Witnesses Leydig and Carfagna
¶ 58 Next, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in qualifying defendants' witnesses, Leydig and Carfagna, as experts. Plaintiff argues that Leydig has no experience practicing sports law or drafting liquidated damages clauses and Carfagna has no experience with unaffiliated sports leagues or in drafting contracts. A witness may testify as an expert "if his experience and qualifications afford him knowledge that is not common to laypersons, and where his testimony rather, whether the allegations of negligence concern matters within his knowledge and observation." Jones v. O'Young, 154 Ill. 2d 39, 43 (1992). The core issue here is whether defendants were negligent in failing to include an exit fee provision in the league agreement, and Leydig has extensive experience in contract matters and liquidation clauses while Carfagna has broad experience in both the sports law and contracts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying them to testify as expert witnesses.
¶ 61 E. Admissibility of Leydig's and Carfagna's Testimony
¶ 62 Plaintiff also challenges the admission of portions of Leydig's and Carfagna's testimony at trial. First, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in allowing Leydig to testify that (1) departing owners would have refused to pay any exit fees, (2) Ehrenreich understood and approved the provision in the agreement that tied liquidated damages to expulsion instead of withdrawal, and (3) the opinions of plaintiff's expert Leib were not well-founded. Regarding the first statement, plaintiff does not cite the page in the record where this testimony can be found in violation of Rule 341(h)(7), and thus, plaintiff has forfeited this argument. See Velocity Investments, LLC v. Alston, 397 Ill. App. 3d 296, 297 (2010). Plaintiff provides citations to the record for the second and third statements, but we have not found this testimony on the cited pages. Instead, these pages refer to the parties' discussion of jury instructions and defendants' motion for a directed verdict. The supreme court rules "are not merely suggestions, but are necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the courts." Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488, ¶ 5. This court "will not sift through the record or complete legal research" to support an argument, and issues that are "insufficiently presented do not satisfy the rule[s] and are considered waived." Id. ¶ 6. We note that plaintiff makes the same arguments about the admissibility. See In re V.Z., 287 Ill. App. 3d 552, 564 (1997). "The weight to be assigned to an expert opinion is for the jury to determine in light of the expert's credentials and the factual basis of his opinion." Wiegman v. Hitch-Inn Post of Libertyville, Inc., 308 Ill. App. 3d 789, 799 (1999). Where conflicting expert testimony is presented at trial, it is the jury's duty as the trier of fact to resolve that conflict. Hallowell v. University of Chicago Hospital, 334 Ill. App. 3d 206, 212-13 (2002). The mere fact that the opposing experts at trial presented conflicting testimony is not sufficient to overturn a jury's verdict. Rather, this situation "involved a classic battle of the experts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 36 (2003). The jury needed to hear this evidence and "use its best judgment to determine where the truth could be found." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony.
¶ 68 II. Jury Instructions and Special Interrogatories
¶ 69 Plaintiff next argues that the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions on the legal construction of a contract, waiver, and agency. Jury instructions must convey the correct principles of law applicable to the evidence presented at trial. People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53, 65 (2008). As long as some evidence exists in the record to justify an instruction, "it is within the trial court's discretion to determine which issues are raised by the evidence and whether an instruction should be given." Id. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Id. at 66. ¶ 70 Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in giving a non-Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (non-IPI) on the legal construction of a contract. Plaintiff contends that the instruction resolved a core issue of the case for the jury, whether defendants' negligent drafting of the agreement resulted in ambiguities and conflicts to plaintiff's detriment, by informing the jury that the agreement contained no conflicting provisions. A trial court must use an Illinois Pattern Jury 32 Instruction (IPI) in a civil case, if applicable, considering the facts and the prevailing law. However, if the instruction "does not accurately state the law, the court may instruct the jury pursuant to a nonpattern instruction." Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 273 (2002). The trial court abuses its discretion in giving a non-IPI instruction where, taken as a whole, it does not fairly, fully, and comprehensively apprise the jury of the relevant legal principles. Id. at 273-74. A reviewing court "will not reverse a trial court for giving faulty instructions unless they clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice to the appellant." Id. at 274. ¶ 71 To make our determination, we must first consider whether an IPI could have been given that accurately states the law. Id. Plaintiff, however, does not provide an IPI instruction the trial court should have given instead, nor has plaintiff indicated whether it tendered this instruction at trial. Plaintiff has forfeited this issue on appeal where it did not tender an instruction at trial. People v. Tannenbaum, 82 Ill. 2d 177, 180 (1980). ¶ 72 In any event, the non-IPI instruction given by the trial court conveyed the correct principles of contract law applicable to the evidence presented at trial. Plaintiff presented testimony that the general quorum provision of the agreement conflicted with the expulsion provision, thereby precluding the league from enforcing the expulsion provision. The trial court instructed the jury that, "When construing a contract such as the league agreement, the contract should be read so as to give effect to all provisions wherever possible. In addition, when two clauses of a contract conflict, the more specific clause should apply." This instruction was clear and accurately stated the prevailing law. See Mayfair Construction Co. v. Waveland Associates Phase I Ltd. Partnership, 249 Ill. App. 3d 188, 200 (1993) (stating that "[i]n construing a contract, it is presumed that all provisions were inserted for a purpose, and conflicting provisions 33 will be reconciled if possible so as to give effect to all of the contract's provisions"); American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 274 Ill. App. 3d 327, 337 (1995) (finding that "in construing a contract, courts must give effect to the more specific clause and, in so doing, should qualify or reject the more general clause as the specific clause makes necessary"). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving this instruction. ¶ 73 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in giving an instruction that described waiver as "an intentional relinquishment of a known right, which may be express or implied from the conduct of the plaintiff who is alleged to have waived this right." Plaintiff contends that this instruction did not "highlight the necessity of the right being known to the party and intentionally relinquished." (Emphases in original.) Plaintiff proposed an instruction that to find waiver, the jury must "find that: (1) the Plaintiff had a right to pursue a legal malpractice claim against the Defendants that could be waived; (2) the Plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of that right; and (3) Plaintiff intended to relinquish that right." Plaintiff argues that its proposed instruction is more complete on the doctrine of waiver and, thus, the trial court's instruction was improper. ¶ 74 We disagree. As the trial court's instruction states, waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right that can be demonstrated either by express words or implied by conduct. UIDC Management, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 167 Ill. App. 3d 81, 84 (1988); Whalen v. K Mart Corp., 166 Ill. App. 3d 339, 343 (1988). The only significant difference between plaintiff's proposed instruction and the court's instruction is plaintiff's insertion of a definition for a "known right" as a right about which plaintiff "had actual or constructive knowledge." However, a "known right" is a self-defining and commonly understood phrase, as 34 opposed to a technical term or words of art. See Parikh v. Gilchrist, 2017 IL App (1st) 160532, ¶ 34. In the absence of anything to obscure the meaning, a "known right" does not need to be defined. See id. We find that the court's instruction clearly conveyed the applicable law, and no abuse of discretion occurred in giving this instruction. ¶ 75 Plaintiff also challenges the trial court's instruction on agency that stated, "if you find that the defendant Steven Leech is not liable, then you must find that defendant Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Americus & Farkas, LLP is not liable." Plaintiff contends that the instruction improperly discounted its theory that the defendant law firm failed to adequately supervise Leech. Plaintiff, however, did not object when the trial court ruled on this instruction. "It is well established that the failure to object at trial to an asserted error in jury instructions waives the question." Tannenbaum, 82 Ill. 2d at 180. ¶ 76 Furthermore, plaintiff makes only a bare argument that the evidence showed the amount of time Leech spent on drafting the league agreement, and "Clifford Harstad's advice to Defendant Leech and the amount of time [they] spent on drafting the league agreement." Without further analysis or citations to authority, plaintiff concludes that "[t]his was more than enough evidence for the jury to find that the Defendant Law Firm was liable for legal malpractice for failing to adequately supervise Defendant Leech." We find plaintiff's argument insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 341(h)(7), and therefore plaintiff has forfeited this issue on appeal. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanders, 2015 IL App (1st) 141272, ¶ 43 (finding that the defendant's conclusory arguments, with no citations to relevant authority, violate Rule 341(h)(7) and do not merit consideration on appeal). ¶ 77 Plaintiff's final contention is that the trial court erred in submitting two special interrogatories to the jury. The trial court submitted a total of three special interrogatories and 35 each one stated that the jury should consider it "if you find in favor of the plaintiff." The jury, however, found in favor of defendants. Even if submission of the interrogatories was error, reversal is not required absent a showing of prejudice to plaintiff. Eaves v. Hyster Co., 244 Ill. App. 3d 260, 266 (1993). There is no indication in the record that the interrogatories improperly influenced the jury's determination or that the jury even considered the interrogatories. ¶ 78 Plaintiff is not entitled to a perfect trial but to a fair trial free of substantial prejudice. Garest v. Booth, 2014 IL App (1st) 121845, ¶ 48. We find that plaintiff's allegations either did not constitute error or, if error occurred, did not substantially prejudice plaintiff. Therefore, a new trial is not warranted here. ¶ 79 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. ¶ 80 Affirmed.