Si xth Di vi si on Decem ber 10, 2010 No. 1-09- 1312 LA WDR ENA Z ELLERS, Pla int iff,
v. JUA N HERNA

NDEZ an d THOMA S DAV

IS, De f en da n ts (Thom as D avi s an

d GMA C In sura nc e Com pan y , Counter plai

ntif fs-Appel lees,
v. Juan Hern

andez, Coun terdef endan t-App el l an t.) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty

06 M1 300341

Honorable Laurence D

unf ord, Jud ge P re siding JU STI CEMc BR

ID E de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fol l owi ng a May 2004 v ehi cle ac ciden

t, pl ai ntif f Lawdren a Ze l l ers f i l ed a p erson

al i nj ury ac ti on a gai ns t de f en da nts Ju an He rnan de z a nd Th omasDa

vi s. D av i s f i l ed a c oun terc l ai m f or contr ib ution against Hernandez. GMAC Insurance Company (GMAC) was added later as a co unt er plaint iff

. Ze llers se t t led wit h Davis a nd GM AC, a s Da vis’s insur er , fo r $ 17, 500 and execute d a

rel ea se f or b oth d ef en da nts an d the c as e p roce ed ed

onl y on th e c ontr i bu ti on counterclai

m. A n arbi trat ion a ward found Hern

andez to be 100% negl

ige nt, but no money dam ages were requested. Davis m oved for a good-fai

th fi ndi ng on the settlem

ent and f or t he trial court to enter judgm

ent in fav or o f Dav is and GMA

C for $17,500. The trial

court concl

uded that a good- fai

th fi ndi ng was un

necess ary an

d entered judgm

ent for Davis and GM

AC f or $17,500. Hern andez a ppea l s, arg ui ng th at: (1) th e tri al

court erred

by al teri ng th e arb i tration awar d to enter a mone

y judgme nt on the arbi

trat ion a ward when

no mone y da ma ges had b een awarded1-09-1312

2

at ar bit r at io n; a nd ( 2) t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in e nt er ing jud gme nt o n t he co nt r ibu t io n c o un t er cla im wh en no f i ndi ng of good f ai th on th e settlem en t had be en made. On January

25, 2006 , Zell

ers fi led h er tw o-co unt perso nal

in jury complai nt against Hernan dez and Dav

is . Count I all eged negl

ige nce agai nst Hernan

dez and count II al le ged negl ige nce agai nst Davis. The compl

ai nt all eged that on May 1, 2004, Zel le rs was operating a motor vehicl e southbound on Kedzi e at the in tersection wi

th Colum bus i n Ch ic ago. At t hat tim

e, Hern andez was d

ri vi ng a vehi cle wes tboun d on C olu m bus and Dav i s wa s dri vi ng n orth on K edzi e. Zel le rs alle ged that both Hernandez an d Davi s were guilty

of the f oll owing a cts of negl

ige nce: operating a m

ot or vehicl e at an exce ssi

ve rate of speed un

der the circum

stances; fai

li ng to brake hi s veh ic le properly ; f

ai li ng to keep a proper loo kout ; f ai li ng to keep hi s m

ot or vehicl e under pr op er co nt ro l; fail

ing t o w ar n t he plaint iff

of t he impending d ange r; failing to t ake pr op er evas ive action to av oid

a col l i sion onc e i

t bec am e i m m i nent; and f

ail i ng to y i eld the ri ght of way . Ze l l ers al l eg ed tha t asa di rect an d pr oxi materes ul t of one or m ore of the ne gl i ge nt a ctsor om i ss i on s of Hernan de z a n d D av i s, th e v eh i cl es ope ra ted b y Hernan de z a n d D av i s c ol l i de d w i

th Zel l ers’ vehi cle. A s a re sul

t of the col l i sion, Ze l l ers s

ustai ne d i nj uri es a nd p aid f or me di cal

care and t re at ment. Zellers also expe rience d pa in, su ffering and menta l anguish, t empo ra ry and perman ent dis abi li ty an d dis fi guremen t, in two weeks of l

ost wages, and propert y da ma ge to her vehi cle. Her medi cal bi l l s we re $6,8 00. Ze l l ers s ought $1 5,000, p l us c osts, f rom e ach def endan t. I n Ju ne 20 06 , Da vis file d a co un t er cla im fo rco nt r ibu t io n a ga inst He rna nd ez . Da vis al le ged that Hernandez was guil ty of the f oll owing a cts or o mi

ssions: fa il in g to ma in tain a proper an d s uffic ien t lo o ko ut ; fa iling t o ex er cis e o be die nc e t o t r affic law s; an d t r av eling at a s pe ed in1-09-1312

3

excess of the posted speed li

mi ts and greater than reasonab le and proper under the ci

rcumstances and acti ng c arel ess l y and ne gli gen

tly. Dav i s pl ed th at i f j udgm en t was e ntere d i n f av or of Z el

l ers and again st Davis, then j udgment for cont ribution sh ould be entered in f

avor o f Davi

s and again

st He rna nd ez in p r o po rt io n t o t he amo un t o f fau lt o n t he pa r t o f He rna nd ez wh ich pr o ximat ely caused and/or contr ib

uted t o Zellers’ in

juries or damages. I n Ap r il 20 08 , Ze ller s s et t led wit h D av is fo r$1 7, 50 0 a nd ex ec ut ed a r ele as e o f all def endan ts, i nc l udi ng H ernandez. Th

e settlem en t was p aid by

GMA C, Da vis’ s i ns urer. Z el l ers released al

l l iab il ity cl aim s, but excluded any

clai ms f or co ntribution that Davis has agai nst Hern andez. In Ma y 20 08 , D av

i s f i l ed an am en de d c oun tercl ai m f or c on tri b uti on . D av i s, i n addi ti on to t he pr eviou sly pled neg ligent act s o r o missions, alleged t hat Her nande z: failed t o o bey the i ns truc ti ons of an of f i ci al traf f i c-c ontr ol de vi ce ; f ai l ed to stop at a

cl ea rl y mark ed stopl i ne or befo re ent er ing t he cr os swa lk at a “st ead y red indicat ion”; fa iled t o p ro cee d t hro ugh t he inter sec t ion o r p ast a flashing yellow s ignal wit h cau t ion; and was ot her wise c ar eless a nd negligent . D avis re asse rt ed his c laim f or co nt ribut ion fro m Her nande z in pr op or t ion t o t he pro xi mate cause of Zell

ers’ in juries or damages. Subsequent ly , t he trial court dismissed Zell ers’ claims against Davis a nd He rna ndez wit h pr ejudice and t he mat t er pr oc eed ed s olely on t he co unt er claim for c ont ribut ion. Also in May 20 08, Davis filed a mo t ion t o s pr ead of r eco rd t he am oun t of settl em en t. D av i s a sk ed to prov i de

th e tr i al cou rt w i th th e a moun t of th e s ettl em en t, $17,50 0, to assi

st i n c alcul ati ng th e j udgm en t in the c ontri

buti on coun terclai m . On Jul y 28, 200 8, the

parti es proceed

ed to arb i tration on the contri buti on coun terclai m .1-09-1312

4

Th e a rb i trator s f oun d that al l pa rti espa rti ci pa ted i n g ood f ai th. Th ey en tere d a n “aw ard f or cou nte rpl ai nti f f , Th omasDa vi s, a nd ag ai ns t cou nte rde f en da nt, Ju an He rn an de z, wi th f i nd i ng of 100 % ne gligence on p ar t of Ju an He rna ndez .” In t he se ct ion fo r c os t s, t he ar bitr at ion finding stated “none” an

d “n ot requested.” Neither party rej ected the arbi trat ion a ward. In Aug us t 20 08 , D avis filed a mo t io n t o ad d G MAC as an a dd it io nal c o unt er pla int iff, wh i ch the tri al cou rt gran ted . Da vi s a nd GM A C th en f i l ed a s ec ond am en de d c oun terc l ai m f or contributi on. GMAC al

le ged i dentic al

cl ai ms of negl ige nt acts or o mi

ssions by Hernan dez as Da vis. GM AC f

ur t he ralle ge d t ha t it pa id t he co st s o f t he se t t leme nt pu r su an t t o an au t o mo bile i ns uran ce pol i cy, an d un der that pol i cy, GMA

C i s the “b ona f i de subr ogee” of D avi s f

or hi s en tire l oss c l ai m . Dav i s f i l ed a m otion ask i ng f or ju dgm en t on the a rbi tration awar d to be e ntere d. Hernan dez obj ected to the motion an d both parties f

il ed briefs on the motion. Hern

andez con ten de d that D av

i s f ai l ed to sh ow that the s ettlem

en t wi th Z el l ers wa s r ea son

ab l e a nd i n g ood f ai th. He rnan

de z al so a ss erte d that D av i s c oul d n ot rec ove r un de r a th eory of con tri bu ti on be ca us e t he r e w as no jo int ind eb t ed ne ss , as He rna nd ez wa s fo un d t o be 10 0% ne glig en t . Da vis rep l i ed tha t He rnan de z f ai l ed to rej ec t the

arbi trati on a wa rd a nd ca nn ot chal l en gethe f i nd i ng of 100% n egl i gen ce. Da vis f urthe r argue d tha

t a good-f ai th f i ndi ng was n ot requi red b eca use Zel l ers settled and rel

eased al l de fen dants and that j udgme

nt in the am ount o f $17,500 agai

nst Hernan

dez shoul d be en tered, b ase d on the settlem en t and the a l l ocati on of

f aul t by the a rbi trators. In Decem ber 2008, the j udge presi din g entered an order that t he award of 100% ne gl i ge nc e agai

ns t He rnan de z s tan dsan d “ thi s m atte r wi l l proc ee d to tri

al on th e i ss ue s of1-09-1312

5

proxim ate cause and m

edi cal dam ages and n

ature and extent of Lawdren a Zel le rs’ i nj uries related to this occurrence.” The case wa s schedul ed for trial on March 18, 2009. On that date, counterplai ntif fs fi le d a mo t io n fo r a go o d- fait h finding o n t he s et t lemen t aw ar d. Th e t ria l co ur t gr ant ed co unt er pla int iffs leave t o file an ad dit ional mo t ion fo r jud gment on t he ar bitr at ion aw ar d ent er ed J uly 28, 200 8, and set a br iefing sched ule and a hea ring d at e. On Ma y 4, 2 009 , t he t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a hear ing on the motions . At the heari ng on the m

ot ion, an ot her j udge stated t hat he di d not beli eve a go od -fait h finding was ne ces sar y and de clined t o mak e a d et er minatio n abo ut t he go od faith o f the settl em en t. The tri al cou rt th en gra nte d c oun terp l ai nti f f ’s moti on f or j udg men t on th e a rb i trati on awar d. The court al so va

cated th e Dec em ber 5, 200 8, order s ettin

g the cas e f or tria l . The court entered judgm

ent in fav or o f Dav is and GMA

C and agai

nst Hernan

dez i n the am ount o f $17,500. Thi s appeal

followed. On appe al , H er

n an de z a rgue s th at th e tr i al cou rt e rre d i n aw ardi n g $ 17 ,50 0 i

n da mag es to the counterplai

ntif fs when the arbi trat ors fai le d to ma ke a m onetary award i

n i ts fi ndi ngs an d that th e tr i al cou rt e rre d i n en ter i n g j udgm en t on th e c on tri b uti on cou n tercl ai m wh en n o good -f ai th f i ndi ng h ad b een m ade a s to the s ettle

men t wi th Ze l l ers.

“ Th e [J oi nt T ortf ea sor Con tri bu ti on A ct (C ontr i bu ti on A ct)] cre ate s a

sta tutory righ t of co nt ribut ion in act ions ‘w her e 2 o r mo re per so ns ar e su bject t o liability in to rt ar ising ou t of t he same i nj ury to per son or pro pert y, or t he sam e wrongful death’ (740 ILCS 100/ 1, 2(a) (West 1996)) , t o t he extent that a to rtfeasor pays m ore t han h is pro ra ta sh

ar e of th e c om mon l i ab i l i ty (740 ILCS 100/2(b) (West 1996)).” Johnson v . Uni ted Ai rli nes , 203 Il

l . 2d 121 , 128 (2 003).1-09-1312

6

The “ com mon l i ab i l i ty ” is “ th at a moun t ac tual l y pai d b y th e p ar ti es de f en da n t to th e i n j ur ed pa rty pursuant to a go od-fai

th settlem ent in a reasonabl

e am ount in ex chan ge for a f ull relea se.” Malla ney v. Dunawa

y , 17 8 Il l . A pp. 3d 8 27, 832(19 88) ; s eeal so Hall v. Ar cher -D aniels-M idland Co. , 122 Il

l . 2d 448 , 461 (1 988). In Malla ney , the parties were i

nvol ved i n a m ot or vehicl e accident wi

th a car and a
m otorcy cl e. S an dra Horton, a p as seng er on

the motorcy cl e, w asi njure d a nd su ed the dri ve r of the car, Jam

es Dunawa

y, b ut not Patrick Mal

la ney , the driver of the m

ot orcycl e. Dunaway

fi le d a counterclai

m f or co ntrib ution agai nst Mal la ney . Dunaway

settled wi

th Hort on, who entered a releas e of al l clai m s ex cept th e pen

di ng c ontri buti on coun terclai m . Malla ney , 178 Ill . App. 3d at 829 . P rio r t o t rial o n t he co nt ribut ion claim, D unaw ay so ught t o ha ve t he t rial co ur t set t he comm on li abi li ty to t he am

ount o f the s ettleme

nt. Dunaway

asserted that Mall

aney ’s trial

strategy was t o c ont end t hat t he injuries s uffere d by Ho rt on w er e gr eat er t han t he se t t lement a mou nt and that Dunaway ’s percen

tage of faul

t was greater t han

Mal la ney ’s. Under this strategy, Mal la ney could m in im iz e or avoid pay

in g a share of

the settlem

ent am ount. The tr ia

l c ourt deni

ed Dun away ’smotion

and app eal

ed un der Su prem e Court Ru

l e 308 (155 Il

l . 2d R. 3 08). Malla

ney , 178 Ill . App. 3d at 829-30. The re viewing co ur t co nsider ed w het her t he “co mmon liabil ity” wa s lim

ited t o t he amo unt of the settl em en t or i f a th i rd- pa rty de f en da nt i s a l l owe d to e sta

bl i sh at the tri al f or con tri bu ti on that the i nj ured p arty ’sdam

ages ex cee ded the settlem

en t. Malla ney , 178 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 830.

“ Th e p ol i cy

of the Con tri bu ti on A ct i s to enc oura

gecom prom i se an d s ettlem en t i n th e a bs en ceof bad f ai th, fraud or coll

usi on. [Citation.] Thi s poli cy is promoted by approvi

ng settlem

ents that1-09-1312

7

represent a f

ai r compromi se of the partie s' i nterests, even though the dol la r amount so giv

en does not accurately

represent the i

nj ured party's da

ma ges.” Malla

ney , 1 78 I ll. App. 3d a t 833 . T he co ur t t he n c o nc lud ed t ha t t he amo un t pa id t o t he inju r ed pa r t y “in e xc ha ng e fo rt he r ele as e o f all cl ai ms agai nst the j oint tort feas ors constitute[d] the ‘comm on li abi li ty.’ ” Malla

ney , 178 Ill . App. 3d a t 833 ; s eeal so Zi

ark o v. Soo L i

ne Ra i l road Co. , 161 Il

l . 2d 267 , 285-8 6 (199 4). Se cti on 2 of th e C on tri b uti on A ct p rov i de s, i n re l ev an t pa rt: “(c) Wh en a rel ease or covenan

t not to sue or not t o enforce j udgm en t is gi ven i n good f ai th to one or m

ore pers ons l

i ab l e i n tort aris in g out of the sam

e i nj ury or the sam

e wrongful

death, it does not discha rg e any o f the ot her t or t feaso rs fr om liabili t y for t he in jury or wro ngf

ul de ath unl

ess i ts terms so provide b

ut it reduces t he r eco ver y on any claim aga inst t he o t her s t o t he ext ent of a ny am oun t sta ted i n th e re l ea se or th e c ove

na nt, or i n th e a moun t of the c onsi derati on actuall y pai d f or it, wh i ch ev er i s gre ater. (d) Th e tor tf ea sor wh o se ttl es wi th a c l ai man t pu rs ua n t to pa ra gr ap h (c ) i s d i sch arge d f

rom al l l i ab i l i ty f or a n y con tri b uti on to an y other tortfe asor. (e ) A tortf ea sor wh o se ttl es wi th a c l ai man t pu rs ua n t to paragraph (c) i s not entitl ed to r ecover contribution from another to rtfeasor whose lia

bi li ty i s not extin

guis hed b y the settlem ent.” 740 IL CS 10 0/2 (W

est 200 6).1-09-1312

8

To r eject an arbi

trat ion award, a part y m

ust fil e written not ice of the rejecti on and request t o p ro cee d t o t rial wit h t he cler k o f the circu it co ur t , a long wit h a $2 00 fe e, wit hin 30 d ays o f the f i l i n g of th e a rb i tra ti on aw ard. 1 66 Il

l . 2d R. 93 (a). I f

n o on e r ej ec ts th

e a wa rd , then an y pa rty may move to en

ter j udgm en t on the a ward. 1 55 Il

l . 2d R. 9 2(c). Here, Davis settled with Zel lers f or $ 17,500 in exchan

ge for a release of all

clai ms agai nst both Da vi s a nd He rnan de z. A t tha t poi nt, the “ com mon l i ab i l i ty” w asset i

n th e a moun t of $17 ,50 0. Th

e on l y que sti on r em ai ni ng wa s th e a ppor ti onm en t of f aul t un de r th e c ontr

i bu ti on co un t er cla im. T ha t qu es t io n w as su bmit t ed t o ar bit r at io n a ft er t he dis miss al o f Ze ller s’ law su it aga inst bo t h Davis a nd He rna ndez . Fo llowing a he ar ing, t he ar bitr at or s fou nd He rna ndez t o be 100% n egl i gen t in the acci den t. Davi s f il ed a m ot ion f or judgm ent on the award, which the trial court granted and then awarded $17,500, the ful

l a mount of the com

mon l ia bi li ty, i n dam ages. Hernan

dez di d not reject t he ar bit r at o r s’ find ing o f 10 0% ne glig en ce , bu t co nt en ds o n a pp ea l t ha t sinc e t he ar bit r at o r s d id not awa rd an y money dam ages to Davis, the

tria l court l acke d the

auth ority to award da

mages . We disagree. The arbi trat ors were not asked t o assess or apport ion da ma ges beca use that amount had alrea dy been d et er mined by the s et t lement. The ar bitr at or s we re pr ese nt ed w ith o ne issue , t he li mi ted issue of apportionm

ent of f aul t. We point out t hat in

a contribution action af

ter settlem ent, which i s what occurred here, the Illi nois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil , No. 600.1 1 (Supp. 200 8) (h ere inaf ter, IPI C ivil (2 008

) No.600 .1 1) do

not in struct the

ju ry to m ake an aw

ard of damages. “600 .11 Apportionment of Responsibility—Contribution1-09-1312

9 Foll owin g Set tlement—N egl ige nce To appo rtion dama ges, you must determine from a ll the evi dence t

he relati ve de gre e of f ault of each party to this lawsu it [a nd of any persons identified in the verdict form] who proximately caused

_________ _ [injuries] [damages]. plaintiff’s In making that determination, you should consider the de gree to which the

[condition o f the

prod uct] [ and] [p erson 's] [ and] [e ntity 's] conduct proximately caused plaintiff's [injur ies] [damages]. In your verdict form,you wil l state the p ercentage of fault of each of these

persons. The total of

these per

centages must add u p to 10 0%. ” IPI Civil (Supp. 2008) No. 600. 11 . In accordance wi

th how a j ury would apport ion f aul t, t he arbi trat ors only

apport ione d faul t between Davi

s and Hern

andez. On

ce the arbi

trat ors found i

n f avor of Davi

s and apportioned 10 0% o f t he fau lt t o He r na nd ez an d s inc e n eit he rpa r t y o bje ct ed t o t he aw ar d, t he co un t er cla im was pr op er ly submi

t t ed t o t he t rial co ur t for ent ry o f judgment . Fo llowing a mo t ion by Davis, t he trial court entered judgm

ent on the arbi

trat ion f in din g that Hernandez was

100% at faul

t and then awar ded 1 00% of

the c omm

on l i ab i l i ty, i.e. , the amount of the settlem ent, to counterplai

ntif fs as damag es. In e nt er ing judg ment o n t he ar bitr at ion aw ar d, t he t rial co ur t did no t alte r o r c or re ct t he f i nd i ng by as se ss i ng the am oun t of the com mon l i ab i l i ty ag ai ns t He rn an de z. The am oun t of dam ages was n

ever at is sue and, thus, was n ot part o f the arb itration award. The proceedi ngs1-09-1312

10

b oth i n ar b i tra ti on an d i n th e tr i al cou rt c on f orm ed wi th th e C on tri b uti on A ct. Fu rth er, He rnan

de z’ s d i scus si on th at the tri al cou rt ca nn ot rej ec t or m

odif y an arbi trati on award due t o a par ty’s confusi on does no t help Hernandez but, rat her, suppo rts co unterplain tiff s’ po sitio n. I n Tho mas v. L eyva , 2 76 I ll. App. 3d 6 52 ( 199 5) , a defend ant misi nt er pr et ed t he am ount of the a rbi tration awar d an d di d not f i l e a re j ection. On

appe al , the re

vi ewi ng c ourt de cline d t o mo dify t he ar bit r at io n a wa r d b ec au se o f a p ar t y’s misu nd er st an din g s uc h t ha t “it would be unr eas onab l e to com

pel pl ai ntif f s to procee d to trial

on the meri ts m erel y be caus e [a defen dant] reali

zed, months

la ter, t hat the resul

ts of the judgm

ent were not to her l

iki ng.” Thomas , 276 Ill . App. 3d at 655. Whi le Hernan dez ci ted this cas e to suppo rt his a ssertion that cou n ter pl ai n ti f f s m i su n ders tood th

e a rb i tra ti on aw ard, we f

i n d i t ap pl i ca b l e to i l l us tra te Hernan dez’s m is understandi

ng. Hernan

dez asserts that the arbi

trat ion a ward mus t be entered as wr itt en wit hou t co nsider ing money da mages , a s t he ar bitr at or s did no t awa rd damag es. As pr ev io us ly d isc us se d, t he ar bit r at o r s w er e n o t as ke d t o de t er mine mo ne y da mag es no rco ul d t he y, as the com

mon l i ab i l i ty was a l ready set at $1 7,500;they

were onl y ask ed to apportion f

aul t. Hernan dez di d not reject the arbi trat ors’ fi ndi ng that he was 100% n

egl ige nt and i s bound b

y tha t fi ndi ng. Ne xt, He rnan

de z c onte nds th at the tri al cou rt er red i n d ec l i ni ng to make a

f i nd i ng of good fai th as to Davi s’s settlemen t with Zell

ers and without t hat fi

ndi ng, the t rial

cour t’s judgmen

t must be r ev er se d. Co un t er pla int iffs ma int ain t ha t a g o o d- fait h find ing wa s no t r eq uir ed , bu t ev en if it were, this c ourt can concl ude from the record t hat counterplai ntif fs have sustai

ned thei r burden t hat t he se t t lement w as in go od faith.1-09-1312

11

W e c onc l ude tha t the tri al cou rt wa s c orre ct i

n h ol di ng tha t a g ood-f ai th f i nd i ng wa s n ot nece ssar y under t hese fact s. We loo k t o t he de cisions in Ha ll and Malla

ney for support o f our co nclusio n. I n Ha ll , the to rt plai ntif f was in jured at a construction si

te and fi le d a negl ige nce cau se o f act ion ag ainst t wo defend ant s. O ne o f the defend ant s, Ar cher -D aniels-M idland Corpor ation (ADM

), file d a counterclai

m f or co ntrib ution agai nst the other defen

dants and a thi rd-par ty c l ai m f or contri buti on ag ai nst the tort pl ai

ntif f ’sem ploye r. AD M se

ttled wi th the tort pl ai nti f f i n w hi ch al l of the de f en da nts we re rel ea se d f rom the ne gl i ge nc e a cti

on. Th e c ontr

i bu ti on cl ai m proceeded to a jury

and i t appor tioned f

aul t among the three tort feas ors. ADM then aske d t he t rial co ur t t o e nt er judg ment o n t he jur y fi nding and it t hen ap po rt ioned t he se t t lement a mou nt acc ordi ng to the j ury ’sf i ndi ng. Ha ll , 122 Ill . 2d at 450-51. On ap pea l, t he su pr eme co ur t co nsider ed mult iple issues , bu t only o ne is re levant t o t he in stant matter. The to rt plai ntif f’ s em ploy er contended that ADM f ai le d to ma

ke a prima facie cas e fo r c ont ribut ion and failed t o s how t hat t he amo unt of t he se t t lement w as r eas ona ble and
made i n good f ai th. Ha ll , 122 Ill . 2d at 460. T he suprem e court disagreed. “It is evident her e t hat t he se t t lement r eac hed by ADM and the pla in tif f was in good faith an

d was reasonab le , and that ADM pai d m ore than i ts proporti onate s

ha re of the c omm

on l i ab i l i ty. In se ttli n g w i th th e p l ai n ti f f an d e xti n gui sh i n g th e p oten ti al tort l i ab i l i ty of the others, ADM un

derto ok t he colle ctive

li abi li ty of the parti es fo rt he inju r ies at iss ue he r e, su bje ct o nly t o wh at ev er su cc es s it
m i ght l ater hav e i

n i ts contri buti on action s ag ai

nst [the coun

ter-1-09-1312

12 de fen da nt an d t hir d- pa r t y de fen da nt ] . T ha t cir cu mst an ce wo uld give ris e t o a p re su mpt io n o f go o d fa it h o n t he p ar t o f a contri buti on pl ai nti f f wh o has settl ed th e un

derl y i ng tort acti

on. Whether ADM pai

d an amount in

excess of i

ts pro rata shar e o f the com mon l i ab i l i ty wa s th e p oi nt d ec i de d by the j ury i n th e tri al of ADM's c ont ribut ion claims, a ssu ming tha t t he amo unt of t he set t lement w as a ppr op riat e. And as we ha ve alre ady indicat ed, t he amount of the set tlemen

t was reaso nabl

e, in l igh t o f Hal l' s in juries, an d [ t hir d- pa r t y de fen da nt an d c o un t er de fen da nt ] did no t at t emp t in t he t rial co ur t t o c ont ra dict t he r eas ona bleness o r g oo d fait h of t he settlem ent.” Ha ll , 122 Il

l . 2d at 46 1. The Malla

ney co ur t follow ed t he de cision in Ha ll and f urther expl ai

ned. “A settlem ent giv en i n good fai

th may be presum

ed reas onab l e i

n the ab sen

ce of a ti mel y obj ection i

n the tri al court. And, t he mere fact t hat an injure d pa rt y's act ual da mages exce ed t he am ount o f the s ettleme

nt does not pro ve that the settlem ent was unr eas ona ble. [ Cita t ion. ] O bviou sly, t her e ar e ca ses w her e t he pla in tif f is will in g to settle f

or far le ss than the

am ount o f actual da mag es su sta i n ed wh er e f ac torssuch

as pl ai n ti f f ' s u n wi l l i n gn es s to sue a pote n ti al de f en da n t, a s h er e, pl ai n ti f f ' s u n wi l l i n gn es s to go to trial , plai ntif f' s comparati

ve n egl ige nce, tim e barri ng or ot her1-09-1312

13 po t ent ial defense s merit co nsider at ion d ur ing set t lement negotiations . Compromi se under suc h ci rcumstances i s nei

ther coll usi ve n or fraudule

nt, but entirel

y c ompatible

with the pol

ic y un derl y i n g th e C on tri b uti on A ct. Th us , to p re v ai

l on a ch al l en ge to the rea son ab l en es s of a s ettlem en t, a def en da nt to th e c ontr i bu ti on claim wou ld have t o e st ablish tha t t he differe nce be t wee n t he settl em en t am oun t an d the val ueof the i njure d pl ai nti f f 's cl ai m f or compensatory dam

ages was sub stantial

enough to smack of

‘bad fai th,’ coll usi on or fraud.” Malla

ney , 178 Ill . App. 3d at 833. Her e, Davis, like ADM, “unde rt oo k t he co llective liability of t he pa rt ies” by set t ling the negl ige nce action with Z el le

rs and rel easi ng both hi

ms el f an d Hernan dez. Davi s’s se

tt le me nt giv es rise t o t he pr esu mpt ion o f go od faith. If He rna ndez want ed t o c hallenge t he go od faith o f the settl em en t, h e s hou l d have ob j ec ted i n th e tri al cou rt at th e ti me the p arti

eswe re rel

ea se d f rom Ze l l ers ’ a cti on. He rnan

de z di d n ot do s o, an

d there f ore, he f orf ei ted an y ch al l en geto the good faith o f the set t lement. Acco rd ingly, the t rial co ur t co rr ect ly dete rmined t hat a go od -fait h finding was unn ecessary after the apportionm

ent of f aul t had occurred, as the only action rem

ai ni ng was th e en try of j udgm en t. Mo re ove r, we no t e t hat Her nande z’s r eliance o n Joh ns on i s m i spl ace d. Joh ns on presented a differe nt fact ual sit uat ion. In t hat cas e, one defend ant set t led wit h t he t or t plaint iff s and ext inguished its o wn liabili t y in cont ribut ion t o t he o t her nons et t ling to rt feaso rs. The set t ling t or t feaso r a nd t he plaint iff s move d fo r a go od -fait h finding of t he se t t lement a nd t he no nset t ling1-09-1312

14

tortfeas ors oppose d the

motion . Joh

ns on , 2 03 I ll. 2d a t 125 -2 6. The t rial co ur t app ro ved t he good-f ai th se ttlem en ts an d the contri buti on cl ai m s ag ai nst the se ttli ng tortf eas or were d

i sm i sse d. Joh ns on , 203 Il

l . 2d at 12 6. In

contras t, thi s ca se i

nv olv ed th e settlem

en t betwe en the tort pl ai ntif f and one tortfeas or that car

ri ed th e en

tire com mon l i ab i l i ty a nd r eleas ed al l tortfeas ors. T his s et t leme nt did no t ex t ing uis h a co nt r ibu t io n c laim by a no nse t t ling t o r t fea so r , as it did in Joh ns on , but all

owed for Davi s to pursue his c ontributi on cl ai m a gai nst Hernan

dez. Ba se d on the f oreg oi ng rea sons, we a f

f i rm the de ci si on of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co un t y. Af f i rmed. GA RCIA, P.J., an

d CA HILL , J., con

cur.