## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 0 6- 1652 , 06

- 1782 , 06

- 1783 , 06

- 1793 , 06- 1794, 06

- 1795 & 06

- 1796 M I LL ARD B ALTZ ELL an d R UT H A NN B ALTZ ELL, P la intif fs-A pp ellees , C ross-A pp ellees , v.
R &R T RUCK I NG C O ., F REIGH TLINER C O RP ., an d L UF KI N I NDUSTRIE S, I NC .,

D efend a nts-Third P a rty P la intif fs-A pp ellees , C ross -App el lants , v.
T HE E NS I GN -B I CKF ORD C O ., Third P arty D ef

endant-Appellant, C ross-A pp ellee. Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 02 C4058

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 14, 2007

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 4, 20092 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. Befo re B AUER, E VANS, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . M i l l ar d “Sk eet er ” Bal tzel lwas cri ti cal l y inj ured wh en he w as crushed bya tr acto r- tr ai l er w hi l e w or ki ng fo r The Ensign-Bi ckfor d C om pany. S kee ter so ug htwor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n fr o m E ns ign, a nd a l o ng wi th h i s w i fe Rut h Ann, b r o u g h ts t r i c tl i ab i l i t y c l a i ms aga i nst three co m panie s

— R&R Truc k i ngCo m pan y, the o wnero fthe t r ac to r - tr ai l er ; F r ei g ht l i ne rCo r po r at i o n, the tr ac to rmanuf ac tu r er ; a nd Lufk i n Indus tr i es , Inc . , the tr ai l er m an uf ac tu r er . The se defen dan ts th enso ug ht co nt r ibut i o n b y fi l i ngthi r d- par tyc l ai m s ag ains t Ens i g n. The Ba l tz el l s pr ev ai l ed be f o r e a j ury, w hi chf o und the defe nd ants and En si gn col l ecti vel y l i abl e for$1 3, 980, 120. E n s i g n th e n mo v e d t o d i s mi s s th e c o nt r ib u t i o n c l a i ms ag ain stit inex c h an ge for w aiv in g a st at u to ry lien th at it ha d o n the Ba l tz el l s’ r ec o ve r y fr o m the de fen dan ts
. The dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed Ensign’s m oti on a nd ente re d j u d gmen ta g a i ns tthe de fe nd a nt s and En s i g n. We c o nc l ud e th at th e I l l i no i s W o r k er s’ Co m pen sa ti o n Acta nd the I ll inoi s S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in LaFeverv. Kem li te Co. , 70 6 N
. E.2 d 441, 45 2 ( I l l
. 19 98) r equi re us t o va c ate the c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent a nd r em an d f orfurtherpro ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND A . W orke rs’ com p en sation i n I ll inois Be f o r e de l v i ng i nt o the f a c t s o f thi s c a s e , we fi r s tp r o v i de som e ba c kg ro u n d on th e s om ew h at co m p lica tedN os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. 3 st at u t o r y s c h em e a t is su e h er e. L ike oth er st at es , I llin ois ha s a w orkers’ com p en sation sys tem i n w hich em p lo yers com pensate th ei r em plo yee s forj ob- re l ate d i nj uri es or illn es se s, re ga rd les s o f fau lt. SeeI l l i n o i s Wo r k e r s ’ C o mpen sa ti o n Act( “I W CA ”) , 8 20 I l l
. Co m p. S ta t. 3 05 /1 et s eq . I n re turn fornothaving to p ro ve f aul t, em plo yee s re c eiv e on ly w or ke rs ’ c om p en sa tio n b en efit s fr o m th eir em plo yer s a nd cannotsue thei r em plo yer s t o re cei ve m or e d am ag es . See i d. at30 5/5( a)
. Thi s rul e a l so bar s l oss o f co ns o r tium cl ai m s th at empl o y ee s’ spo us es m i g ht ot h er w ise br in g a ga in st em p loy er s. Id. ( extendi ng ba r to “any one othe rw ise e nti tl ed to r eco verdam age s for su c h inju ry ”); Vickery v. Wes ti ngho use -Haztech, Inc. , 95 6 F. 2d 161, 16 2 ( 7th C ir. 19 92) ( “[ T]he [ I l l i noi s] W or ker s’ Com pensati on Act has b een c onsi ste n tly i nter prete d to bar su its for l oss of con s o r tium by a covered w orker’s spouse . . . . ” ( ci ti ng D obrydnia v. In d . G roup, Inc. , 56 8 N
. E
. 2d 1002 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1991))). So m eti m es, h owever, part i es othe r than an em plo yer mi g h tc a u s e a n e mp l o y e e t o b e i nj u r e d a tw o r k
. A n e mplo yee i n thi s s i tuati on ca n sue these thi rd p ar ti es f or d am ag es . See8 20 I l l
. Co m p. S ta t. 3 05 /5(b) ( “Wher e th e inj u ry or d ea th for w h ich co m p en sa tio n is p ay ab le unde rthi s Act was c au se d underc i r cumst an ce s cr ea ting a legall i abi l i ty f ordam age s o n the part ofso m e per son othe r than hi s em p l oye r to pay dam age s, then l ega l proce edi ngs m ay be t ake n aga i nst s uch otherpers on to re cove r dam age s no tw i thsta nd i ng such e m plo yer ’ s paym en t of or liabil ity to p ay com p en sation un d er th is A ct.”). These thi rd part i es can i n turn see k c ontr ibuti on fro m4 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. the e m plo yer, ther eby pu l l i ng the em plo yerinto the sui t. Id. A l ternati vel y, an e m plo yerm ay choos e t o exer ci se i ts ri ght t o i nterve n e in the sui t be f or e s ati sf acti on o f j u d gm en t. See Ins. C o . of N . Am . v. An drew , 56 4 N
. E.2 d 939, 941 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1990). N ow sup pose an em plo yee e n d s up r eco ver i ng m oney fro m a th ird p ar ty for a w or k-r ela te d inju ry . Th at w ou ld i m pl y the e m pl o y erwas no t s olel y r es po ns ibl e f o rthe acci dent. S o I l l i noi s l aw gi ves t h e e m plo yera l i en o n any r ec o ve r y th at an empl o y ee o bt ains fr o m a third partyf ora w or k- re l ate d i nj ury. 82 0 I l l
. C om p. S tat
. 305/5( b)
. A n em plo yerwh o exer ci ses thi s l i en ge ts firs t crac k a t a ny recovery th e em p loyee gets from the th ird p ar ty
. Id
. ( “ [ F ] r o m th e a mo u n tr e c e i v e d b y s u c h e mpl o y e e o rp e r s o na lr e pr e s e nt a t i v e [ fr o m a thi r d p a rt y] th e r e s h a l lb e p a i d t o t h e e mp l o y e rth e a mo u n to fc o mpensati on p aid o r to be pai d by hi m to such e m plo yee or person al r ep resen tative .
. . . ”). To c alculate the a m o unto fthe e m pl o y er ’ s l i en, o ne begins with the r eco ver y that th e em plo yee r ecei ves fro m the law su i t a nd then re du ces thi s v al ue “byan am ount equal to the am ount f ound by the tr i er of fac t to be the em plo yer’ s pro r ata shar e o fthe com m on l i abi l i ty i n the acti on. ” Id. The a m ou n t ofthe em plo yer ’ s l i en ca nno t e xc ee d i ts to ta lw o r k er s’ co m pen sa ti o n obl i g at i o n. H er e a r e so m e e x am p les to h elp illus tr at e h ow th is c alcul ati on work s:N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. 5

Al tho ug h notr a i s e d b y the pa r t i e s i n thi s a ppe a l , the I W CA 1 als o prov ides that any r ei m bu rs em ent that an em ployer re cei ves w h e n e x e r c i si n g it s l i e n is r e d u c e d b y : (1 ) th e e m p l o y e r ’s pro rata s hare of the em ployee’ s cos ts and reasonably nece ss ary e x p e n se s i n b r i n g i n g th e su i t, a n d (2 ) 2 5 % o f th e e m p l o y e e ’s a tt o rn ey fee s. S ee82 0 I l l
. Com p. St at. 3 05/5(b)
. The s e c os t
- an d fee-s ha ring p ro v ision s m ak e sense

— because the em ployer has c as he d i n on the em pl oye e’ s s ui t ( by ex er c i s i ng the l i enan d effec t i vel y r educ i ng i t s worke rs ’ c om pen s at i on obl i gat i on) , the s t atute r equi re s the e m pl oye r t o c hi p i n f or the e xpe ns e ofthe suit. Workers’ comp. oblig ation Total

rec overy f ro m suit % f au lt

o fe mployer E m p l o y e r ’s

p ro rata liab ility E m p l o y e r ’s

li en 1

$2 M $5 M 0% $0 $2 M $2 M $5 M 8% $400 K $2 M $2 M $2 M 25% $500 K $1. 5 M $ 2 M $ 1 M 4 0 % $ 4 0 0 K $ 6 0 0 K $2 M $1 M 60% $600 K $400 K $2 M $5 M 60% $3 M $2 M A s the l astentry in t h e chart shows, so m eti m es an em plo yer ’ s pro rat a li abi l i ty m i ght e xceed i ts w or ker s’ com pensati on obl i gat i on. Thi s i s probl em at i c be cause I ll inois l aw seeks to p rotect em p loyers from pa ying m ore than wh at w or ker s’ co m pensati on r equi re s.6 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. To av oi d thi s di ffi cul ty, the I l l i n ois Sup re m e Cour t has p ro vid ed em p loy er s w ith tw o d iffer en t w ay s to c u r t ail thei r contr ibution l i abi l i ty. Fi rs t, I l l i noi s l aw caps an em plo yer ’ s co ntributi on l i abi l i ty at “an a m ount not gr eat erthan the [ em plo yer ’ s] w or ker s’ co m pensati on l i abi l i ty. ” Kote ck iv. Cyc l ops We l di ng Corp
. , 58 5 N
. E.2 d 1023, 1028 ( I l l
. 19 91). This value, wh i ch i s g ener al l y r efer re d to as the “ Kote ck ic ap, ” r epr es en ts the maxi m um a m o unt th ata n e m pl o y erha s to pa y i n c o nt r ibut i o n. D esp i te the pr ote cti on that Kote ck iprov ides , how ever, s o me e mp l o y e r s mi g h ts t i l lp r e fe rt o p a y w o r k e r s ’ c o mp en sa tio n rat h er th an co n tr ibu tio n . For ex am p le, a c on tr ibuti on j ud gm ent woul d probably r eq uir e a n em plo yer to m ak e a l um p s um pa y m en t up fr o nt; wor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n, o n the o th erha nd, o ften i nc l ude s a co m po ne nt th ati s pai d o utover many y ea r s. Ev eni fthe l um p s um pay m en t i s d iscount ed to a cc o untf o rl o sti nv es tment opportunit i es, i t m i ght no t be pro perl y in d ex ed f ori nfl ati on, w h ich i m pli ci tl y decr eas es the c osto ffuture paym ents. M or eov er, bec ause the t otal c ost o fworke rs ’ com pensati on o fte n depend s o n how l ong the inj ured em plo yee sur vi ves, an e m plo yerm ight preferworke rs ’ com pensati on i fit beli eve s the em plo yee wil ldi e s oo ner than expecte d. ( The fl i p sid e is thatan e m plo yerm ay en d u p p ay in g m o r e i n w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n th an in c on tr ibu tio n if th e e m p loy ee live s lon ge r th an ex p ec te d .) S o I l l i n o i s l a w p r o v i d e s e mpl o y e r s wi th a s e c o nd opti on

— an em plo yercan es cape co ntributi on l i abi l i ty a ltogethe r by w aiving its l ien on an em p loyee’s r ecov ery fro m th ird p ar tie s. See La Fev er, 7 0 6 N. E. 2d at4 5 4
. AnN os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. 7

em p loy er w h o t ak es th is o p tio n ca n n o lon ge r sh ar e in dam age s that the em plo yee re cove rs fro m a thi rd party. H owever, the em plo yercan then be certai n that i ts o n l y p a y me n to b l i g a t i o n w i l la r i s e und e rw o r k e r s ’ c o mpen sa ti o n.
B . Fa c t ua l ba c kg r o und Sk eet erBal tze l l w or ked f orEnsi gn, a m anufa cture r of caps and bo ost er s forexpl osi ves, ata f ac i l i ty i n U ni on C ou nt y, I ll inois. H e help ed load spec ial ized tractor-trail ers th a th a u l e d e x p l o s i v e s a wa y fr o m th e E n s i g n f a c i l i t y . R &R Trucki ng had a contr act w i th Ens ign to pro vi de these t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r s a l o ngwi th the dr i v e r s , he l pe r s , a nd e qu i pm ent ne cess ar y t o l oad and unlo ad the t ra i l er s. O n Ma y 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , a n E n s i g n e mpl o y ee b a c k e d a n R &R tr ac to r - tr ai l eri nt o S k ee te r, c r us hi nghi m b etwee n the tr ail era nd a l o adingdo ck
. The F r ei g ht l i ne rt r ac to ra nd L ufkin trailer th at w ere involved i n th e accid en t w ere n o te q u i p p e d w i th a b a c k

- u p a l a r m. Sk ee te r w as te rrib ly i nju r ed . H is p elv is w as se ve re ly fractu red and his bladd e r a nd l ow er i nt estina l tract w ere crushed. Because of h is inj uri es, S kee tersuffer ed deep v e i n thr o mbo s i s , a h e a r tat t a c k, r e s pi r a t o r y f a i l ur e , a nd a s t r o k e tha tl e fthi m br a i n da mag e d a nd p a r t i a l l y p a r a l y z e d. Sk ee te r st ill ne ed s c on st an t c ar e a n d at te n tio n from h is w ife, Ruth A nn, as he ha s a per m anent c ol ost om y, m ust be c athet er i zed to urinate, and has cogni ti ve diffi cul ti es. S k e e t e rfi l e d a c l a i m b e f o r e th e I l l i n o i s Wo r k e r s ’ C o mpen sa ti o n Comm i ss i o n ( I W CC) s ee k i ngwor k er s’ c o m pen -8 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l.

The di s t ri c tc our tpr ope rl y e xe rcis ed di ver s i t y j ur i s di c t i on 2 o v er Sk ee te r a n d R u th A n n ’s cla i m s. S ee28 U .S.C . § 1 3 3 2 (a ). Sk eeter an d R u th A nn w ere citize ns an d resid en ts of Ill i no is, w he rea s R & R , F reig htlin er, and L u fkin w ere in cor p or ate d in M issou ri, D elaw are , an d T exa s, resp ectiv ely , an d ha d the ir p rinc ip al p laces o f b u siness in M issou ri, O reg on , an d T exa s, res pecti vely. The am ount in c ontrovers y exc eeded $75,000. Si m i l ar l y, the c our tha d s uppl em en t al j ur i s di c t i on ove r the c ont ribut i on c l ai m s ag ai ns tEns i gn, a Conne c t i c utc or por at i on w ith its p ri n ci p a l p la ce o f b u sin es s in C o n n ec tic u t. S ee i d. § 1367. sat i on be nefi ts fro m Ensign . Sk eet erand Ruth A nn al so fi l e d th i s s u i t i n fe d e r a lc o u r t, a l l e g i n gs t r i c tl i ab i l i t y c l a i ms un d er I ll inois l aw f o r p erson al injury and l oss of consortiu m , res p ec tiv ely , aga in st R & R , F r eig h tlin er , an d L u fkin ( col l ecti ve ly, the “defendants”)
. The defendants the n fi l ed th i r d- par tyc o nt r ibut i o n c l ai m s ag ains t Ens i g n. 2 On A pri l2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a j ur y r e t urne d a v e r di c ti n f a v or o fS k ee te rf o r$ 11 , 98 0, 12 0, a nd in f av o r ofRuth Ann f or$2 , 000, 000, wh i ch r esul ted i n a t ota lj ud gm ent o f $13, 980, 120. T he j ury apporti oned f aul t a s fol l ows: S k ee te rBa l tz el l, 0 % ; F r ei g ht l i ne r, 2 0%; Lufk i n, 1 0%; R&R, 40% ; and Ensig n , 3 0%
. A ccor dingl y, Ensi gn was l i abl e t o Sk eet erand Ruth A nn f or$1 3, 980, 120 *
. 30 = $ 4, 194, 036. I l l i noi s l aw l i m i ted Ensi gn’ s co ntributi on l i ab il i ty to the pr ese nt cas h val ue o fi ts tot alworke rs ’ co m pensati on obl i gat i on ( i
. e. , i ts Kotecki c ap ). Bu t the I W C C had n’t yetfi nal l y dete rm i ned w hat Ensi gn’ s t ota lworke rs ’ com pen sa ti o n l i ab i l i tywoul d b e, s o the di st r i ctc o urt re quir ed Ensign to subm i t a n est i m ate o fthi s a m ount. E n sig n subm i tte d docum entat i on that i ts Kote ck ic a p wasN os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. 9

A s r e qui r e d b y Il li nois l aw , thi s cal culat ion i m plic it ly r eapp or- 3 tion ed to th e d efend an ts the d ifferen ce b etw een the liab ility as s es s ed by the j ur y a gai ns tEns i gn ( $4 , 19 4, 03 6) an d the Ko t ec kic a p am o u n t ($ 4 ,08 5 ,57 1 .21 ). S ee Il l
. Tool Works , Inc. v. Indep. M ach. C orp. , 80 2 N .E .2d 12 2 8 , 12 3 2 (Ill . A p p . C t. 2 0 0 3 ). $4, 085, 571. 21, and that i t had alr eady pai d $873, 953. 31 i n wo r k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n t o the Ba l tz el l s. Nei th er the defe nd ants northe Balt zel l s di sputed these val ues, wh i ch the di str i ct c ourtpro ceeded to adopt. En si gn t hen m ove d to w ai ve i ts l i en o n the Balt zel l s’ re covery a nd to di sm i ss the defendants’ thi rd- party con t r ib ut ion clai m s. O n O ctob er 4, 2005, the d istri ct cou rt den i ed th i s m o ti o n, r ea so ni ngtha t “[ a] l l o wi ngEns i g nB i ckf or d to w ai ve i ts l i en now w oul d m or e than part i ally fru st ra te th e p u rp os e o f th e C on tr ibu tio n A c t, an d it w oul d do nothi ng to pro m ote the pu rpos es ofthe w or ker s’ com pensati on s tatute. ” The co urt then r educed the to tal j ud gm ent o f$1 3,98 0,1 20 by the a m ount that Ensi gn w oul d pay ( the Kote ck i cap am ount of $4, 085, 571. 21) , wh i ch leftth e r e m ain in g $ 9,8 94 ,54 8 in d am ag es to be sp lit am ong the three defendants ba sed o n thei r re specti ve shar e o fthe l i abi l i ty. Fo r exam ple , R& R w as l i abl e for 3 40% of th e total da m a g e s , and the th ree d efend an ts w ere l i abl e for70 % o fthe tot aldam age s, so R & R’s shar e was 40% /7 0% = 57. 1428 57% o fthe cu m u lativ e l i abi l i ty f or the th re e defe nd ants, ther eby m aking R& R l i abl e for $9,894,548 * .571 4285 7 = $5,654,027. Si m il arly, the cou rt fou n d Fre igh tlin er liab le for $2 ,82 7,0 13 , an d L u fkin liab le10 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. f or$1 , 413, 506. The co urt enter ed j ud gm ent in f avo r of the Bal tze l l s in thes e a m ounts. En si gn the n fi led var i ous pos t-j ud gm ent m oti ons, i ncl ud i ng anotherm oti on t o w ai ve i ts w or ker s’ co m pensat i o n l i e n a n d d i s mi s s th e th i r d

- p a r t y c o n t r ib u t i o n c l a i ms aga i nst i t. M eanw hi l e, the Balt zel l s a nd the defe nd ants enter ed a s ett l em ent a gr eem ent in w hi ch t h e defendants ag r ee d t o pa y the i rr esp ective pr o r at a sh ar es o fthe j ud gm ent b ut r ese rv ed thei r ri ght to lit i gat e co ntributi on and seto ffi ssues . O n Febru ary 13, 200 6, th e d istri ct cou rt de nied En sign’s p ost-ju d gm en t m otions, setting th e stage for En sign’s curr ent a pp eal
. T h e d efendants al so fi l ed re l ate d cro ss/ contingent appeal s re gar ding set off and contr ibuti on i ssues i n the eve nt thatwe vacat ed th e j u d gm ent e nter ed ag ains t Ens i g n.

II. A N A L Y S IS A. E ns i g n wa s e nt i t l e d t o wa i v e i t s wo r ke r s ’ c o mpe nsation l ien an d t h e con tribu ti on claim s again st i t s ho ul d h a v e be e n d i s mi s s e d. B e c a u s e t h i s i s a d i v e r s i t y c a s e g o v e r n e d b y I l l i n o i s l a w, w e m u st res olv e t h is m at te r h o w w e t h in k t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtw ou ld
. See A ll st ate Ins
. Co
. v. M enards, Inc. , 28 5 F
. 3d 63 0, 6 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. I f th ere i s no pr ev ai l i ng au th o r i tyfr o m tha t co ur t, we g i ve great wei g htt o the h old in gs of th e Illino is a p p ella te co u rt s. Id.N os. 06

- 1652, 06

- 1782, 06

- 1783, 06

- 1793, etal
. 11 T h e p rim ar y p re c ed en t a t i s s u e h er e is th e Illino is S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in L a F e v e rv . Ke ml i t eCo , 70 6 N
. E.2 d 441 ( I l l
. 19 98) . Sim il arto thi s ca se, the em plo yee i n La Fev ersuffered a w orkp lace inju r y a nd sued a third par ty, w ho i n tur n s ue d the e m pl o y erf o rc o nt r ibut i o n. Aft e ra j u r y f o u n d th a tb o th th e th i r d p a r t y a n d th e e mplo yerwere l i abl e, th e t ri alco urt perm i tte d the e m plo yer to wai ve i ts wor k er s’ co m pen sa ti o n l i en an d have th e c on tr ibu tio n cla im ag ain st it d ism iss ed
. Id. a t 44 4- 46
. The I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t appr o ve d o fthe t r i alcou rt’s deci si on a nd hel d that an em plo yercan w ai t a nd se e ho w a j ury ver dictgo es bef or e deci ding w hetherto waive its lien
. Id. at 453 ( noting that nothi ng i n 820 I l l
. Com p. S tat
. 305/5( b) “r equi re d [the em plo yer ] to waiv e th e li en bya d ate certa in”). H er e, the dist ri ct cou rt di d not a l l ow E nsi gn to waive i ts l i en be cause i t fel t that a l l owing a p ost- ver dictwaive r woul d “ m o r e th anpa r ti al ly fr us tr at e th e pur po se o fthe Con tr ibut i o n Act
. ” W e unde r st an d the c o ur t’ s appa r en t bel i efthati t would be unfa i r to al l ow a post
- verd ict w aiv er , give n th at E n sig n d ec id ed to w aiv e th e lien on ly afte rthe j ur y f o und i t to b e si g ni fi cantl y l i ab l e f o rthe acci dent. ( Pres um abl y Ensig n would not have w ai ved th e lien if th e jur y h ad ins te ad fou n d it m in im ally liab le or notl i abl e a t a l l
. ) But La Fev err e qu i r e d the di s t r i ct c ou rtto gra n t E n s i g n ’s la te w aiv er . In d ee d , La Fev ere xp re ss ly in d ica te d th at an em p loy er c an en ga ge i n th is k i n d o f st ra te gic d ec isio n m ak in g. Id. ( noting the re was no th i ng un f ai ri n the e m pl o y er ’ s st r at egy o fwai ting unt i la fte rt r i alt o wai ve i ts l ien an d s ta tingtha t th e co ur t was “ r eluct an t to di ct at e tr ial st r at egy t o a ny12 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. l i ti gant w hen thatst ra tegy i s en ti re l y c onsi ste nt with con troll ing statu tes an d prior dec isi ons of th is court”). St i l l, the Balt zel ls and the defendants co ntend that La Fev eri s di st i ng ui sh ab l e from thi s ca se . In La Fev er, the em plo yer had al re ady pai d out the worke rs ’ co m pensati on benefi ts that i t owed the em plo yee and i t w as not re quir ed to m ake any future paym ents. By co ntra st, Ensi gn estim ates that i t stil l ow es abou t $3 m il li on in fu t u re w or ker s’ co m pensati on paym ents to the Bal tze l l s. I l l i noi s co urts, however, have neve r sugge ste d that w e s houl d dist in gu i sh be tw een pai d and futur e be nefi ts w hen de c i ding w hetheran e m plo yercan w ai ve i ts w or ker s’ co m pensati on l i en. Ind eed, I l l i noi s l aw i s cl earthat an em p loyer’ s li en e n com p asses both pa id an d fut ure wo r k e r s ’ c o mpe ns a t i o n b e ne fi t s . F o re xa mpl e , the I W CA sta tes thatfro m the m oneythe em plo yee r ecei ves fro m a thi rd- partysuit, “there shal lbe pai d to the e m plo yer the a m ount o fc om pensati on pai d orto be pai d by hi m to su c h em p loy ee .” 82 0 Ill. C om p . St at . 305 /5 (b ) (em p h as is add ed). A nd the La Fev erc o u r ti t s e l fn o t e d th a ta n “ e mp loy er m ay cla im a lien on th e w or ke r’s rec ov er y, in an am ount e qual to the a m ount o fworke rs ’ co m pensati on d ue the w or ker
. ” La Fev er, 70 6 N
. E.2 d at 4 51 ( em phasis ad d ed ); see also Ram s ey v . M or r i s on , 676 N
. E.2 d 1 304, 1313 ( I l l
. 19 97) ( noting tha t the worke rs ’ co m pe n sati on l i en i s “ equalto the am ount o fth e work er s’ co m pensati on b en efit s p aid or ow ed .” (em p h as is a d d ed )); cf. Z uberv. Ill
. Pow e rCo. , 553 N
. E.2 d 3 85, 386 ( I l l
. 1990 ) ( notin g t h at “reim bu rsem en t” to an em p loyer “m ay take th e form of a l i en, o n past paym ents ofco m pen sa tio n , o r a cr edi t, o n futu re pa ym en ts”).N os. 06

- 1652, 06

- 1782, 06

- 1783, 06

- 1793, etal
. 13 M or eov er, I l l i noi s co urts h av e a l l owed em plo yer s t o w ai ve thei r l i ens e ven when they owed future paym ents. Seegene rally B ranum v. Slezak C onstr
. C o ., Inc. , 68 2 N
. E.2 d 1165 ( I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1997) (not qu est io n in g a tri al court’s deci si on t o p er m i t a n em plo yerto waive i ts l i en ev en th ou gh the em p loyer sti ll o w ed w orkers’ com p en sation). F o re xa m pl e, i n K im v. Alvey, Inc. , 74 9 N
. E.2 d 368, 37 2, 377 ( I l l
. A pp . C t. 2001) , an I l l i noi s a pp el l ate co urt i nd i cate d that a t rialco urt proper l y a l l owed an e m plo yerto waive i ts l i en i n a pos t- tr i alm oti on, ev en tho ugh the am ount o f i ts wor k er s’ c o m p en sati o n obl i g at i o n ( an d he nc e, the v a l ue o fthe l i e n) h a d n o ty e tb e e n de t e r mi ne d. Sim ilar ly, w e c on c lu d e t h atth e d is t r ict co u rtsh ou ld h av e allo w ed Ensign to waive i ts l i en o n the Balt zel l s’ recove r y i n the i rl aws ui t ag ains t th e defen dan ts
. The r ea fter, the cour t s houl d have di sm i sse d the co ntribution cl ai m s ag ains t Ens i g n.
B . Th e de f e nda nt s a r e e nt i t l e d t o a s e t o f ff o rt he w or kers ’ co m pen sat i on be n ef i t s t hat Ensign has a l r e a dypa i d. G ive n th at E n sig n is n otliab le for co n tr ibu tio n (bu t s till o wes wor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti on), we ne xtde te r m i ne w hetherthe defe nd ants ar e en ti tl ed to a set offthat r edu ce s th ei r l i ab i l i ty
. Once an empl o y er wai ves i ts l i en, an em ploye e w ho has r ecei ved w or ker s’ co m pensati on benefi ts w il lneve r have to re pay the em plo yerf ortho se benefi ts, ev en i ft he em plo yee r eco ver s dam age s fro m th i r d p a r t i e s f o rth e s a me i nj u r y . In s u c h a s i tu at i o n, I l l inoi s co urts award a s eto ffthatr educes the l i abi l i ty of14 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l.

W hi l e the pl ai nt i ff s an d defen dant s both t ac i t l y a gr ee d t o the 4 K ot ec ki c a p a m o u n tth a tE n si g n su b m i t t e d (w h i c h w a s E n si g n ’s es tim ate ofi ts w orkers ’ com pensati on ob li gati on), the parti es n ev er ag re ed to a se to ff v a lu e. S ee R & R Br. at 31 n. 6; R. 457, Ex. A ; seeal so Br a num , 682 N
. E.2d at 1177 ( “N o w orkers ’ com pensat i on adj udi c at i on i s m ade w i thi n a cont ribut i on c as e . . . whena 

### (continued...) thi rd part i es by w hatev er a m ou nt o fworke rs ’ co m pensatio n be n efit s t h e e m p l o y ee h as alre ad y re c eiv ed
. Se e, e . g. , Bran um , 682 N .E .2 d at11 78 -79 . Th e ra tio n ale be h in d th is ru le is s im p le

— a pl ai nti ffwh o has a l re ady r ecei ved w or ker s’ co m pensati on fro m an e m plo yers h ou ld not g et a double r eco ver y fro m a t h i rd party forthe sam e inj ury. See Wil son v. Hoffm an G rou p , In c. , 54 6 N
. E.2 d 524, 53 0- 31 (I ll
. 1989). So the d efend an ts he re are entitled to a setoff for any w or ker s’ co m pensati on be nefi ts that the Bal tze lls ha ve a l r ea dy r ec ei ve d fr o m Ens i g n. This does not m ean , how eve r, thata set offi s pro per f o rfutur e worke r s’ c o m pen sa ti o n b en efi ts who se v alue ha s y e tto be d ete r mi ne d. As f a ra s we kno w, the I W CC, w hi ch i s in char ge of deter m i ni ng w or ker s’ co m pensati on awar ds, ha s y ett o i ss ue a fi na lde te r m i na ti o n o n the awar d tha t th e Bal tz el l s wi l lr ec ei ve f o r th e ac ci den t. And an Il lin ois ap p ella te co u rth as ind ica te d th at w e s h ou ld n ottry t o d i v i n e w h at th at aw ar d w ill be. See Bran um , 68 2 N
. E. 2d at1 17 8- 79
. W e f o ll ow tha t co ur t’ s l ea d a nd c o nc l ud e tha ti two ul d b e t o o s pe c ul a t i v e t o a wa r d a set offf orfu ture worke rs ’ co m pensati on be nefi ts w hen w e do not know how the I W CC wil lr eso lve t h e m att er and the par ti es have n ot sti pu l ate d to a s eto ffam ount. 4N os. 06

- 1652, 06

- 1782, 06

- 1783, 06

- 1793, etal
. 15



### (...continued) trial co u rt d eterm ines the p resen t cash v alu e of futu re w or k ers’ com pensati on benefi ts und er K ot ec ki .” (c ita tio n o m itt ed )). See i d. (“[A ]b se n t a n ag re e m e n t be tw ee n all p ar tie s, a set offo fw orker s’ co m pensati on be nefi ts cannot be m ad e unti lthe am ount o fworke rs ’ co m pensati on ben efi ts to w hich plaintiffi s e nt itl ed is fu ll y d eterm ined
. ”); see also O ca m po v . Pape rConve r t i ng M ac h. Co. , N o. 02 C 4054, 2 00 5 W L 20071 44, at* 17- 18 ( N
. D. I l l
. A ug. 12 , 20 05) ( f ol l owing Bran um ). On r emand, the di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d r equi r e th e parti es to subm i t an up date on the worke rs ’ co m pensati on pay m en ts tha t ha ve b een m ad e a nd o n the s ta tu s o fthe proce edi ngs b ef or e the I W C C . Th e co urt shoul d al so i m po se a s et o ffe qua l to the pa i d b en efi ts tha t th e Bal tz el l s ha ve a l r ea dy r ec ei ve d fr o m Ens i g n. Regard i ng future benefi ts, we al so note thatthe m ost effi ci ent s ol uti on m i ght b e foral lthe part ies t o agr ee that any future w or ker s’ co m pensati on paym ents that th e Bal tz el l s r ec ei ve fr o m Ens i g n wi l lb e he l d i n t rus t a nd dist rib u te d to the defendants ac cor ding to thei r pro ra ta liab ility
. See P eki n In s . Co . v. H iera , 84 0 N
. E.2 d 1236, 12 39 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 05 ) (a pp ro ving o fan insurance contr act that setf or th this so rto fpro cedure)
. The defendants su gg es te d th at w e c ou ld m an d at e t h is ou tc om e, bu t it i s no t cl ea rwhethe rwe ha ve the a utho r i tyt o do thi s an d at an y r at e, we dec l i ne t o t ak e th i s st ep g i ve n o uruncert a i nty a s t o the f i na lst a t us o fth e m a t t e rbe f o r e the I W CC.16 N os . 06-1 65 2, 06 -17 82 , 06-1 78 3, 06 -17 93 , et a l. I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s V A CA TED a nd the case i s R EMA NDE D f orfurther proce edi ngs consi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

2- 4- 09