Jones v. H.S. Weavers Underwriting Agency

• Decision Date: 30 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1-91-2187,1-91-2187
• Citation: 608 N.E.2d 416,181 Ill.Dec. 343,240 Ill.App.3d 574
• Parties: , 181 Ill.Dec. 343 Christine JONES and Willie Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. H.S. WEAVERS UNDERWRITING AGENCY, Intervenor for University Of Chicago Hospitals, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 416

608 N.E.2d 416

240 Ill.App.3d 574, 181 Ill.Dec. 343

Christine JONES and Willie Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. H.S. WEAVERS UNDERWRITING AGENCY, Intervenor for University

Of Chicago Hospitals, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-91-2187.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Third Division.

Dec. 30, 1992.

Robert B. Blasio, Linda L. McCarty, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Dennis M. Feinberg, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Justice RIZZI delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Christine Jones and Willie Jones, brought this action in the circuit court seeking enforcement of a court-approved settlement order against defendant, H.S. Weavers Underwriting Agency, intervenor for University of Chicago Hospitals. Following a hearing, the trial court granted plaintiffs' petition and ordered University of Chicago Hospitals to tender the consideration refund issued by the underwriter of the structured settlement annuity to plaintiffs. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to the consideration refund; and (2) the trial court erred when it considered parol evidence while interpreting the parties' settlement agreement. We reverse and remand with directions.

Plaintiffs initially brought an action in the circuit court for personal injuries allegedly caused by University of Chicago Hospitals and other named physicians. On January 31, 1991, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) releasing University of Chicago Hospitals from all past, present and future claims in exchange for an immediate cash payment of $1,586,100 and future periodic payments to plaintiffs guaranteed by the purchase of a structured settlement annuity underwritten by Prudential Life Insurance Company (Prudential). Later that day, the trial court entered an order approving the settlement pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 6.4 (Settlement Order). Circuit Court of Cook County Rule 6.4, Illinois Courts Rule Book, 1985.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, University of Chicago Hospitals immediately tendered payment to plaintiffs and Prudential. Before Prudential received payment, however, the purchase price of the annuity decreased due to volatile interest rate fluctuations caused by the Persian Gulf War. Thereafter, Prudential issued a consideration refund to University of Chicago Hospitals in the amount of $125,398. After being notified of the existence of the consideration refund, plaintiffs filed a petition to enforce the Settlement Order claiming they were entitled to the consideration refund. Following a hearing, the trial court granted plaintiffs' petition and ordered University of Chicago Hospitals to tender the consideration refund to plaintiffs. This appeal followed.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to the consideration refund. Interpretation of a settlement agreement is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court. Chester v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. (1992), 227 Ill.App.3d 320, 325-26, 169 Ill.Dec. 315, 319, 591 N.E.2d 488, 492; Northern Trust Co. v. Brentwood North Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (1992), 225 Ill.App.3d 1039, 1042, 167 Ill.Dec. 826, 829, 588 N.E.2d 467, 470. When two or more instruments are executed by the same parties in the course of the same transaction, the instruments will be considered together and construed with reference to one another. First National Bank of Geneva v. Lively (1991), 211 Ill.App.3d 1, 5, 155 Ill.Dec. 636, 639, 569 N.E.2d 1247, 1250. Because the Settlement Agreement and Order here are not subject to more than one interpretation when considered jointly, it is unnecessary to consider parol or extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties. See Quality Lighting, Inc. v. Benjamin (1992), 227 Ill.App.3d 880, 887, 169 Ill.Dec. 890, 894, 592 N.E.2d 377, 382.

Defendant argues that the language of the Settlement Agreement establishes that the parties intended for plaintiffs to release defendant from all past, present and future claims in exchange for an immediate cash settlement of $1,586,100 and future periodic payments from the structured...