Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc.

Citation756 N.E.2d 836,197 Ill.2d 185,258 Ill.Dec. 562
Decision Date26 July 2001
Docket NumberNo. 88623.,88623.
PartiesMichael DUBINA et al., v. MESIROW REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Appellants (Litgen Concrete Cutting and Coring Company, Appellee.)
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Menges, Mikus & Molzahn, Chicago (Stephen T. Mikus and Scott G. Reno, of counsel), for appellants Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., et al.

Robert Marc Chemers, Edward B. Ruff III and Scott L. Howie, of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtrd., Chicago, for appellants CCL of Chicago, Inc., et al.

Sandra Young and D. Timothy McVey, of Purcell & Wardrope, Chtrd., Chicago, for appellant Economy Mechanical Industries, Inc.

Stephen A. Rehfeldt, of Mulherin, Rehfeldt & Varchetto, P.C., Wheaton, for appellant K&S Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

Herbolsheimer, Lannon, Henson, Duncan & Reagan, P.C., Ottawa (Michael T. Reagan, of counsel), and Kralovec & Marquard, Chicago (John C. Doyle, William E. Spizzirri and Daniel J. Donnelly, of counsel), for appellee Litgen Concrete Cutting & Coring Co.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:

At issue in this case is whether settlement of a tort action for property damage can meet the good-faith requirement of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (the Act) (740 ILCS 100/2(c) (West 1994)) when the plaintiffs, as a condition of their settlement agreement, assign their causes of action to a group of the settling defendants. The circuit court of Cook County answered this question in the affirmative and concluded that the settlement reached by the parties was in good faith. The appellate court reversed. 308 Ill.App.3d 348, 241 Ill.Dec. 681, 719 N.E.2d 1084. We granted the settling defendants' petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill.2d R. 315. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

The dispute which gave rise to this appeal arose from a fire in April of 1989, which destroyed a building that housed several Chicago art galleries. The fire occurred while the building was undergoing extensive renovation. Numerous works of art were destroyed.

In the wake of the fire, owners of the art galleries who leased space in the building, artists who exhibited work in the galleries, and their insurers, brought a total of 35 separate actions containing the damage claims of 112 separate plaintiffs, in the circuit court of Cook County, to recover for property loss. Most of the actions named as defendants the owners and managers of the building, the general contractors hired to do the renovation work, and their subcontractors. The parties to this appeal include the building owner, Mesirow Realty Development (Mesirow); the general contractor, CCL of Chicago, Inc. (CCL); and the subcontractors, Creative Construction, Ltd. (Creative), Economy Mechanical Industries, Inc. (EMI), K & S Automatic Sprinklers (K & S), and Litgen Concrete Cutting and Coring Company, Inc. (Litgen).

As we noted when this case previously was before us (Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 178 Ill.2d 496, 499, 227 Ill.Dec. 389, 687 N.E.2d 871 (1997) (Dubina I)), plaintiffs' complaints alleged, in general, that the various defendants had been negligent in either causing the fire or contributing to the spread of the fire. Defendants filed answers denying liability. Defendants also filed third-party claims for contribution against one another.

Eventually, plaintiffs' actions were consolidated for discovery and trial. Prior to trial, all of the plaintiffs settled with all of the defendants except two: Litgen and Gelick Foran Associates, Inc. (Gelick Foran). Gelick Foran subsequently obtained summary judgment in its favor and is not involved in this appeal.

The settling defendants entered into 29 separate agreements with plaintiffs. Each agreement required plaintiffs to assign their claims against Litgen and Gelick Foran to certain of the settling defendants. Some also named as additional assignees several insurance companies and other nonparties. See 308 Ill.App.3d at 350-51, 241 Ill.Dec. 681, 719 N.E.2d 1084.

The particular assignees varied from agreement to agreement. In each case, however, the assignees included settling defendants. Under the terms of the agreements, the settling defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs a particular amount in settlement and a separate but equal amount in exchange for the assignment of plaintiffs' causes of action against Litgen and Gelick Foran. The total amount paid for settlement was approximately $4.5 million. An equal amount was paid for the assignments. Pursuant to the agreements, plaintiffs agreed to cooperate with the assignees in the assignees' litigation against Litgen and Gelick Foran, and the assignees agreed to reimburse plaintiffs for the cost of that cooperation.

Over the course of a series of hearings in June and July of 1994, the circuit court found that each of the 29 settlement agreements had been made in good faith within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act (740 ILCS 100/2(c) (West 1994)). The circuit court found no evidence of collusion or fraudulent conduct, and characterized Litgen's position as "drag[ging] their feet and obstruct[ing] the process." The circuit court noted Litgen's objection to the settling defendants' motion for a good-faith finding, but stated that Litgen's position would not promote compromise or settlement. The trial court also concluded that Litgen was in the same position it would have been in even if there had been no assignment of claims.

The circuit court thereupon entered orders dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the settling defendants and dismissing all of the defendants' contribution claims against one another, including the contribution claims asserted by Litgen. Only plaintiffs' actions against Litgen and Gelick Foran remained.

The settling defendants subsequently substituted their attorneys for plaintiffs' attorneys, and moved for voluntary dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against Litgen and Gelick Foran. Their motion was granted on July 28, 1994. Litgen then appealed, contending that the circuit court should not have found the settlement agreements to have been made in good faith and should not have dismissed its contribution claims.

While Litgen's appeal was pending, the settling defendants, who had taken plaintiffs' claims by assignment, refiled those claims against Litgen in the circuit court. The appellate court thereupon dismissed Litgen's appeal in this case for lack of jurisdiction (Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 283 Ill.App.3d 36, 218 Ill.Dec. 551, 669 N.E.2d 694 (1996)). This court subsequently concluded that the appellate court did have jurisdiction and should not have dismissed Litgen's appeal. We therefore reversed and remanded the cause to the appellate court for further proceedings. Dubina I, 178 Ill.2d 496, 227 Ill.Dec. 389, 687 N.E.2d 871.

On remand, Litgen again argued that the circuit court had abused its discretion when it found the settlement agreements had been made in good faith. As grounds for this contention, Litgen asserted that the agreements violated the Act by allowing the settling defendants to seek indirectly a remedy they could not seek directly, namely, contribution. In addition, Litgen claimed that the portion of the settlement funds designated for assignments deprived Litgen of a setoff in that amount. Litgen further claimed that the assignments contravened the public policy behind the Act, which is to encourage settlement and the equitable sharing of damages.

The appellate court agreed with Litgen and reversed the circuit court's finding that the settlement agreements had been made in good faith. Guided by this court's decision in In re Guardianship of Babb, 162 Ill.2d 153, 205 Ill.Dec. 78, 642 N.E.2d 1195 (1994), the appellate court found the settlement agreements to be antithetical to the Act. 308 Ill.App.3d at 357, 241 Ill.Dec. 681, 719 N.E.2d 1084. The appellate court concluded that the circuit court had erred in finding the settlements agreements to be in compliance with the Act's good-faith requirement, and also had erred in dismissing Litgen's claims for contribution. 308 Ill.App.3d at 358, 241 Ill.Dec. 681, 719 N.E.2d 1084.

The settling defendants now appeal the appellate court's decision. Appellate briefs have been filed on behalf of Mesirow, K & S, EMI, and CCL, Creative and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (hereinafter "the CCL defendants"). The arguments of the settling defendants fall into two general categories: first, that the appellate court erred in relying on Babb because this case is distinguishable from Babb; and second, that even if Babb applies, the instant agreements are valid because they were entered into prior to the Babb decision.

In reviewing the appellate court's judgment, we must begin with the provisions of the Act itself. The Act provides that where two or more persons are potentially liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them. 740 ILCS 100/2(a) (West 1994). This right, which exists only in favor of a tortfeasor which has paid more than its pro rata share of damages to the injured party (740 ILCS 100/2(b) (West 1994)), is subject to an important limitation. Under the terms of the statute, no contribution can be obtained by or from a tortfeasor with whom the injured party has settled in good faith. If a tortfeasor settles in good faith, that tortfeasor is not entitled to recover contribution from another tortfeasor whose liability is not extinguished by the settlement (740 ILCS 100/2(e) (West 1994)), and any contribution liability the tortfeasor might otherwise have had to any other tortfeasor is thereby discharged (740 ILCS 100/2(d) (West 1994)).

The requirement of "good faith" is the only limitation which the Act places upon the parties' right to settle and thereby extinguish contribution liability. Babb, 162 Ill.2d at 161, 205 Ill.Dec. 78, 642 N.E.2d 1195. What constitutes "good...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Troyer v. Adams, 25174.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • September 25, 2003
    ...court based upon the court's consideration of the totality of the circumstances" (citing Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 197 Ill.2d 185, 258 Ill.Dec. 562, 756 N.E.2d 836, 840 (2001), and In re Guardianship of Babb, 162 Ill.2d 153, 205 Ill.Dec. 78, 642 N.E.2d 1195, 1199-1200 (199......
  • Barnai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 30, 2021
    ...court's determination "after consideration of all of the surrounding circumstances." Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc. , 197 Ill. 2d 185, 191, 258 Ill.Dec. 562, 756 N.E.2d 836 (2001). "This totality-of-the-circumstances approach allows trial courts to give effect to the strong publ......
  • Yoder v. Ferguson, 1-04-3214.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 6, 2008
    ...the terms of the agreement and should have applied a full setoff in this case. See Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 197 Ill.2d 185, 198, 258 Ill.Dec. 562, 756 N.E.2d 836 (2001) (Harrison, C.J., dissenting), citing 740 ILCS 100/2(c) (West Jerelyn argues that Dubina provides that a......
  • Johnson v. Johnson, 1-06-2759.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 5, 2008
    ...define the term "good faith." Johnson, 203 Ill.2d at 128, 271 Ill.Dec. 258, 784 N.E.2d 812; Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 197 Ill.2d 185, 191, 258 Ill.Dec. 562, 756 N.E.2d 836 (2001). Nonetheless, "our supreme court has noted that a settlement will not be found to be in good f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...13:380 Dryvit System, Inc. v. Rushing , 132 Ill App3d 9, 477 NE2d 35 (1985), §16:313 Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc. , 197 Ill.2d 185, 756 N.E.2d 836, 258 Ill.Dec. 562 (2001), §§33:63, 33:65 Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development Inc., 178 Ill2d 496, 687 NE2d 871, 227 Ill Dec 389 (......
  • Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Pretrial Practice - Volume 1
    • May 1, 2020
    ...record for anything other than a good-faith finding.’” [ Id at 38.] Good Faith Not Found • Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc. , 197 Ill2d 185, 258 Ill Dec 562, 756 NE2d 836 (2001): settlement agreement not made in good faith because $4.5 million was allocated as payment for assignme......
  • Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...record for anything other than a good-faith finding.’” [ Id at 38.] GOOD FAITH NOT FOUND • Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc. , 197 Ill2d 185, 258 Ill Dec 562, 756 NE2d 836 (2001): settlement agreement not made in good faith because $4.5 million was allocated as payment for assignme......
  • Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2016 Contents
    • August 10, 2016
    ...record for anything other than a good-faith finding.’” [ Id at 38.] GOOD FAITH NOT FOUND • Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc. , 197 Ill2d 185, 258 Ill Dec 562, 756 NE2d 836 (2001): settlement agreement not made in good faith because $4.5 million was allocated as payment for assignme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT