THIRD DIVISION June 13, 2007

No. 1-06- 2379

WAYNE CZARN IK, ) A ppe al f rom ) the C i

rcui t Court Pla int iff, ) o f Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) ) WENDOVER FINA

NCIAL SERVICES, an ) EDS Company

, CLAIMS A

DJUSTMENT ) SP EC IALI ST S, IN C. , FI DE LIT Y NAT IO NAL ) IN FORM ATI ON S OLU TI ONS , I NC. and ) OLD NA TIONAL BANCORP, ) ) De f en da n ts ) No. 03 L 9331 ) ) (Old National

Bancorp, ) ) Counterplai

ntif f-A ppelle e; ) ) Wen dover Fi nan ci al Services, an ) E DS Co mp an y, ) ) Cou n terde f en da n t-A pp el l an t; )

) Fiedelit y Nat ional I nfor matio n So lut ions, Inc ., and ) Clai m s Adj ustm

en t Speci al i sts, In c., ) Ho no r ab le ) Don

al d J . Su rian o, Coun terdef endan ts). ) Judge Presidin g.
PR ESI DI NG JU STI CETH EIS de l i

v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: W en dov er Fi n an ci al Servi ce s (W en

dov er ) a pp ea l s f rom a c i rc ui t cou rt order d en

y i n g i ts1-06-2379

2

m otion to compe l

arb i tration of a coun terclai m f or contri buti on as serted

by Old Nati onal Ban corp (ONB). Wendover contends that (1) t he ci

rcuit court err ed as a m

atter of law i

n hol din g that
co nt r ibu t io n c laims ar e n o t ar bit r ab le in I llino is; a nd ( 2) ON B’ s c laim fo rco nt r ibu t io n fa lls w it hin the sc opeof the arbi trati on c l au se i n th e p arti es ’ “ su b- servi ci ng agree men t” (th e A gre em en t). F or t he fo llowing r eas ons , w e ho ld t hat t he ar bitr at ion o f ONB’ s co nt ribut ion claim is pre clude d by th e doctr i n e of col l ate ral estopp el an d a f f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt. BACK GROUND The unde rlying plaintiff, Wayne Cz ar nik, filed a c omp laint ag ainst ONB , We ndo ver and
seve ra l ot her defend ant s, s eek ing t o r eco ver damag es fo r p er so nal injuries he s ust ained w hen he fel l through the roof of a h

ome on March

19, 2003, whil

e i nve stigati ng a m old an d water damage clai m at the property . The

rei n, the pl ai ntif f al l eged , inter al

ia , that Wendover and ON B owned, operated, ma

in taine d and controlled the propert y a nd that the pla

in tif f was in spectin g the roo f at t he r eq ue st o f We nd o ve r . T he pla int iff fur t he ralle ge d t ha t We nd o ve ran d O NB we r e n eg lige nt in faili ng t o w ar n of t he da nger ou s co ndit ion o f the ro of, faili ng t o insp ect t he r oo f prio r t o o rd er ing h i m to wor k on i t, f ai l i n g to m ai n tai n or f i x th e roof , f ai l i n g to war n h i m n ot to w al

k u pon i t, faili ng t o s t op t he wo rk unt il a safe and pr op er ro of w as inst alled o r p ro per safet y pre cau t ions
weretak en, f ai l i n g to a de qu ate l y su pervi se th e w ork b ei n g don e, f

ai l i n g to f oll ow th ei r ow n saf ety rules, a nd f ail i ng to prope

rl y sch edul e an d coordi na te the work. Thereaf ter, ONB file d a counterclai m f or co ntrib ution agai nst Wen dover and sev

eral other codefendants pursuant t o t he Joint Tort feasor Cont ribution A ct (t he Contribution Act) (740 ILCS 100/0.01 et seq. (West 2002)). Therein, ONB alle ged that Wendover an d ot her def

endan ts owed1-06-2379

3

t he plaint iff

a du t y to use re aso nable ca re in their re spe ct ive manage ment, inspec t ion, co nt ro l and
su pe rvisio n o f t he pr emis es t o pr o vid e t he pla int iff wit h a sa fe w o rkp lac e. I t fur t he ralle ge d t ha t if ONB wer e fo und liable t o t he plaint iff , it wo uld be o n acc ou nt of t he neg ligent act s o r o missions of W en dover a nd the othe r cod ef en da nts i n f ai l i ng to i ns pe ct the p rem

i se s, f ai l i ng to ope rate

or
mai n tai n th e p re m i se s, f ai l i n g to war n of an y de f ects o r haz ards , a

n d f ai l i n g to prov

i de adeq ua te safeg uar ds t o p re vent t he injury. O NB s ou ght co nt ribut ion in an amo unt co mmensura t e wit h t he deg re e o f negligence at t ribut able t o t he o t her co defend ant s in cau sing any injuries p ro ved by t he plai ntif f
. Subsequen

tly, Wendove

r fi le d a m ot ion to dismi

ss the contrib

ution cl ai m a nd to compel
ar bitr at ion, asse rt ing t hat Wendo ver and O NB w er e pa rt ies t o a n agr eement t hat ou t lined t he terms an d condi tions of thei

r contract ual

relationshi

p. Therein

, articl e 8 i

ncl udes an in demn if ication agreemen

t betw een the part ies wh

ich pro vides: “[ ON B] ag r ee s t o ind emn ify and de fen d W en do ve ran d h o ld W en dover h arm l es s f or an y an d al l thi rd p arty [l]os se s a ri si ng out of the conduct of [ONB’s] bus in ess (and n ot resul ting f rom a breach of W en dov er ’s ob l i ga ti on s h ereu n der), i n cl udi n g b ut n ot li m i ted to * * * (vii) [ d] amage t o p er so n or pr op er t y occ ur ring o n a [m]ortgaged [p]ro perty.” A ddi ti on al l y , a rti cl e 6of th e A gr eemen t prov i de s i

n perti n en t pa rt th at th e p ar ti es ag re e to mandat or y disput e r eso lut ion fo r “any disp ut e, co nt ro ver sy or claim of any kind o r na t ur e ar ising unde r o r in co nnect ion wit h t his Agre ement .” Acco rd ingly, Wendo ver ar gue d t hat t he r elevant1-06-2379

4

contractual

provisions m

andated th

at the c ontri

buti on cl ai m be sub m i tted to arbi

tration
. Ulti ma tely, the circui

t cour t heard argumen

ts on the motion an

d deni ed i t o n the b asi s that
a co mplaint fo r c ont ribut ion wa s no t ar bitr able as a matt er of law . We ndo ver fil ed t he inst ant tim el y i nterl ocutory appe al pursuan t to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 307 (a)(1). 1 88 Il

l . 2d R. 3 07(a)( 1). AN AL YSIS I nit ially, we ad dr es s t he ap plic ab le s t an da r d o f r ev iew
. Ge ne r ally, int er lo cu t o ry ap pe als “are rev ie wed under an

abuse of dis cretion standard to determin e whether the trial

court was correct in grantin g or denyi ng the rel ie f requested.” Per egr ine Financials & Se cur ities v. Hak akha , 3 38 I ll. App. 3d 1 97, 202 , 7 88 N .E .2 d 26 3, 266 (2 003 ). Neve rt heless, her e, wher e t he t rial co ur t made no fact ual findings and its d ecisio n was base d pu re ly on a qu est ion o f law, t he deci si on to deny

Wen dover’s m ot ion to compel

arbi trat ion i s revi ewabl e de novo
. Vas silkovs ka v. Woodfiel d Nis san, Inc. , 358 Il l . Ap p. 3d 20 , 24, 830

N.E.2d 6 19, 623 (2005 ). De fen da nt init ially c o nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in ho ldin g t ha t co nt r ibu t io n c laims are not arbitrabl

e as a m atter of law ci

ting Bo ar d o f Manag er s o f the Co ur t yard s at t he Woodlan ds Condomi

ni um A ss’n v. IKO Ch

ic ago, Inc. , 183 Ill . 2d 66, 697 N.E. 2d 727 (1998) ( Board of Man agers), in s

upport . There, the supreme court was cal

le d upon to resolve a conf li ct between the com

peting pol

ic ie s f avorin g enf orcemen t o f arb itration agreem

ents and those polic ie s f avorin g j oin der an d the resol uti on of m ul tip arty conf l i cts i n a si ngl e f orum . Board of

Man agers , 183 Il l . 2d at 71 , 697 N .E.2d at 73 0. The court he l d tha

t despi te the existen

ce of clai m s by thi rd parties or of pendi

ng m ulti party l itigation, once a contract containi ng a valid a

rbi trat ion c la use has been e xecu t ed, “the par t ies ar e irr evo cably co mmi t t ed t o a rbit ra t e all dispu t es a rising u nder t he1-06-2379

5

agreem ent.” Board of

Man agers , 18 3 I l l . 2d

at 7 4, 6 97 N. E.2 d a

t 73 1. T h us , c on tra ry to Wen do ver ’s a ss er t io n, t he h o lding o f Board of Man agers doe s n ot sta nd f or th e b road prop osi ti on that all contribution actions are n ecessari ly arbi trable. Rather, the court hel d that t he polic ie s fav oring arb itration agreem

ents and the ri

ght of parties to freel

y c ontract wil

l n ot be trumped
merel y be caus e m

ul tip l e parti es or cl ai m s are pres en t. Board of

Man agers , 183 Ill . 2d at 74, 697 N. E
. 2d at 73 1. Ho we ve r , wh er e t he pa r t ies init ially d isp ut e w he t he rt he ir c o nt r ibu t io n c laim fa lls wit hin the s co pe o f the par t ies’ ar bitr at ion ag re ement , t he co ur t must first co nsider whet her t he pa r t ies ag r ee d t o ar bit r at e t he pa r t icu lar su bje ct mat t er o f t he dis pu t e, an iss ue wh ich t he su pr eme
co ur t in Board of

Man agers wasnot cal

l ed up on to addre ss. Addi tional ly , despite the ex

is tence of an

arbi trable i ssue, our court s hav

e al so conside

red i ssues of wai ver and other pri

nc i ples that i m pact up on the

ri ght to arb i

tration . See, e.g., Schro eder Mu rchie Laya Associates, Lt d. v. 1 000 West Lofts, LLC , 319 Ill . App. 3d 1089, 1096, 746 N .E.2d 294 , 300 (2 001) (c ourt cons i dered wh ethe r a par ty wai ve d i ts right to arb i

tration ); City of Rockfor d v. Unit Six of the P olicem en’s Benevolent & Pr ot ect ive Ass’n , 362 Ill . App. 3d 55 6, 84 0 N
. E
. 2d 12 83 ( 20 05 ) ( po lice un io n w as ba rr ed by res judicata from arbi trat in g is sue that had be en deci ded b y the b oard an

d rev i ewed on ad m i nistrati ve revi ew). ONB m

ai ntain s that sin ce it s c o nt ribu t io n cla im is ult imat ely co nt inge nt up o n a find ing t hat it o we s liabilit y t o t he p laint iff,
an d a deter m i n ati on of re l ati v e f aul t of b oth ONB a n d W en dov er wi l l f i rs t b e l i ti ga ted i n cou rt,
an y sub seq uen t arbi tration to rel i tig ate the i ssue of thei r pro rata share of

li abi li ty would b e barred und er t he d o ct rine o f res judicataor co ll atera l estoppel. ONB cites Peregrin e Fi nan ci al Group, Inc . v. Ambuehl , 30 9 I l l . A pp . 3d 10 1, 7 22 N. E.2 d 7 23 (1 99 9) , i n su pp ort.1-06-2379

6

In Per egr ine , su bseq uent t o t he su pr eme co ur t dec ision in Board of Man agers , t he ap pe llat e c o ur t co nfr o nt ed t he iss ue o f wh et he rt he co nt r ac t ua l rig ht t o pu r su e a r bit r at io n c o uld be limit ed by t he e ffec t o f res judicata or co llater al est op pel. The co ur t initially held t hat t he court was the appropriate tribun al to determi

ne the res judicata an

d c ol l ateral

estoppe l ef f ec t of prior court j udgm

en ts upon sub seq uen t arbi tration procee di ngs . Per egr ine , 309 Ill . App. 3d at 10 6, 72 2 N
. E
. 2d at 72 7. I t fur t he rhe ld t ha t “[ i]f t he ar bit r at io n a ct io ns in vo lve iss ue s p r ev io us ly reached, they

are barred notwithstan

din g the parties’ c ontract ual

righ ts to bri ng such actions.” Per egr ine , 309 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 107, 722N.E.2d a

t 727. In mak ing it s r uling , t he c o ur t re lied o n t he c as e o f Horwitz, Schakner & Associ ates, Inc. v. Schakn er , 252 Ill . App. 3d 879, 625 N.E.2d 670 ( 1993), where the court held that an arb i tration be f ore one body

of a rbi trators was

ba rred un der res judicata by

an earl i er arbi tration
. The Per egr inecourt extended Schakn er t o pr io rjud gme nt s, find ing t ha t su ch jud gme nt s c o uld also act as a bar t o s ubse que nt ar bitr at ion ac t ions invo lving the same issu es. Thu s, “t he defend ant s’ r ight s t o p ur sue claims in arbitr at ion we re dep ende nt not only o n t he langu age of t he [a gr eement ] bu t also upo n t he effect of a ny prio r a djud icat ions t hat involved t he sa me right s and is sues.” Per egr ine , 3 09 I ll. App. 3d a t 107 , 7 22 N .E .2 d at 728 . T he ho lding in Per egr inere f l ects th e i de a th at a l th oug h th ere is a b road p re su

m pti on of ar b i tra b i l i ty pr em i se d on th e ri gh t to
con tra ct, ar b i tra ti on ca n n ot b e i n ten de d to af f ord a l i ti ga n t an opp ortu n i ty to re l i ti ga te a dispute that has b een

prev i ousl y resol ve d by a court of

com peten t ju ri sdi cti on. The app licatio n of c ollat er al est op pel is go ver ned by ce rt ain gene ra l principles: “(1 ) t he issue deci ded in the prior adjudication is i dentical with the one presented [ here], (2 ) there wa s a1-06-2379

7

fina l jud gme nt o n t he mer it s in t he pr io rad jud ica t io n, an d ( 3) t he pa r t y ag ain st wh o m es t o pp el is asserted was a party or i

n pri vi ty wi th a party to t he prior adjudication.” Gu m ma v . W h i te , 216 Ill . 2d 23, 3 8, 833 N .E.2d 834 , 843 (2 005). Here, ONB is corr ect t hat under sect ion 2-1117 of the Co de of Civ il Pro cedure (7 35 ILCS 5/ 2- 111 7 ( West 200 2) ), defend ant s’ r esp ect ive liabil ity in to rt t o t he plaint iff

will necessa rily be det er mined in the p rinciple litiga t ion. The ver sion o f the co mpar at ive fault st at ut e in effect at t he time of the pl

ain tiff ’s i nj ury provides i

n pertinent part as follows: “E xc ep t as pr o vid ed in S ec t io n 2
- 11 18 , in a ct io ns o n a cc o un t o f bo dily injury or dea t h or physical da mage t o p ro per t y, base d o n negl ige nce, or product liabil ity base d o n st rict t or t liabil ity, a ll defendant s fou nd liable are joint ly and several ly li abl e for plai ntif f' s past and f

uture medical

and m edi cally related
ex penses . Any

defendan t whose fault, as det ermi

ned by the tr ier of f

act, is l ess t han 25 % o f the t ot al fault at t ribut able t o t he plaint iff , t he de fendant s su ed by t he pla int iff , and any t hird pa rt y de fend ant who co uld hav e be en s ue d by t he p laint iff, shal l b e several

ly li abl e for al l other dam

ages. An y de fen dant whose f

aul t, as deter m i n ed b y th e tr i er of f act, i s 2 5% or gre ate

r of th e tota l f aul t attr i b uta b l e to t he p laint iff, t he d efe nda nt s s ue d by t he p laint iff , an d a n y th i rd pa rty de f en da n ts wh o co uld ha ve be en su ed by t he pla int iff, sha ll be jo int ly and se ve r ally liable fo rall ot her dam

ages.” 735 IL CS 5/2 -1117 (We st 2002 ). Acco rd ingly, the st at ut e r equ ires a co mpar ison o f the fault of t he plaint iff , t he de fendant s su ed by the plai ntif f, and thi rd-par ty defen

dants who co uld hav

e been sued by

the plai ntif f. 735 ILCS1-06-2379

8

ILCS 5/2- 1117 (West 2 002); Illi nois Patter n Jury Ins

tru ctions, Civi

l, No. B45. 03-A, Co mm

ents, at 197 (2006). Thus, bas ed upon the m andate of the statute, t he rel ative cul pabi li ty of W endover
an d ONB wi

l l be ad j udi ca ted i n th e p ri nc i ple l i ti ga ti on. Th e j ury

wi l l be res pon si bl e f or appor ti oni n g th ei r p ercen tag e of f aul t, if an y , to th e p l ai n ti f f . To th en al l ow th e p ar ti es to rel i tig ate the i r pro ratash

are of l i ab i l i ty i n a rb i trati on woul d i nd ee d i m pa ct the f i na l i ty of j udg men ts a nd con trav en e a pri mary pur pos e of arbi trati on, “ to ac hi

eve a f i na l di sp osi ti on of differenc es be t wee n par t ies in an eas ier, mor e exp edit iou s and less exp ensive manner t han by li tigation.” Sh

ul tz v . A tl an ti c M utua l In su ran ceCo. , 367 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 1, 1 0, 853 N .E.2d 94, 1 01 (20 06). Wendo ver ack now ledge s t he effect of se ct ion 2 -1 117 on t he pa rt ies, bu t ar gue s t hat app lyi ng
co llater al est op pel her e co nfli ct s wit h t he su pr eme co ur t ’s de cision in Board of Man agers . We f i n d th at Board of

Man agers is no t dis po sit ive be ca us e it did no t ad dr es s iss ue s o f res judicata or
co llater al est op pel. The re , a co ndo mini um bo ar d br ou ght suit aga inst t he de velop er s o f the
co ndo mini

ums und er t heo ries o f expr ess a nd implied indemnity, a lleging defec t s in the des ign and construction of the roofs. Thereaf ter, t he dev

el opers fi le d a third-party c omplai

nt for condi

tional
con tri b uti on or i n dem n i f i ca ti on ag ai n st th e a rc h i tect an d oth er en ti ti es b as ed up on th ei r c on tra cts to furn i sh des i gn s ervi ces

f or the b uil di ngs . Board of

Man agers , 183 Ill . 2d at 67, 697 N. E.2d at 728 ; s eealso Bo ar d o f Manag er s o f the Co ur t yard s at t he Wo od lands C ond ominium Ass’n v. IKO Manuf acturing, Inc
. , 288 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 80 1, 803, 6 81 N.E.2 d 102, 1 04 (19 97). Notabl y , the condomi

ni um b oard did not sue the archi tect directly, and i

t is un cl ear wh ethe r the a rch i tect would ha

ve owed an y di rect l i ab i l i ty to the plai ntif f i n tort. See, e.g., 2314 Li ncol n Park Wes

t Condomin

ium Ass’ n v. Ma

nn, Gi n, Ebel & Frazi er, Ltd. , 136 Ill . 2d 302, 5551-06-2379

9

N.E.2d 346 (1990) ( court hel d pla in tif f’ s compl ai nt agai nst archi tect for negli

gent design was barred by economi c l oss doctr in

e where theory

that architect was ne gli

gent in its desi gn concerned the qual

ity of the bui

ldi ng an d was a m

atter more appropriatel

y res olve d under contract l aw). Th i s f

act i s s i gn i f i ca n t b ec au se th e a rc h i tect m ay n ot h av e b een j oi n t an d s ev eral l y l i ab l e to the condomi

ni um b oard and its com

parative f aul t under section 2-1117 would n ot have been

at i ss uei n th e p ri nc i ple l i ti ga ti on . See Per egr ine , 309 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 112 n .2, 722 N .E.2d at 73 1 n.2 (f i n di n g th at Board of

Man agers was inappo site wher e t he de velop er s’ liabili t y to t he
co ndo mini

um bo ar d in t he pr inciple litigat ion wo uld no t have r eac hed t he issue of w het her t he archi tect was liabl

e to t he dev

el oper for contr ib

ution). Thus, the probl em of coll ateral estoppel
was not squ ar ely befor e t he co ur t in Board of Man agers . In con trast, h ere , th e p l ai

nti f f has s ue d b oth O

NB an d Wen dover i n th e p ri nc i ple l i ti ga ti on for perso nal

in juries in to rt. Based upon t he comparative f ault stat ute ( 735 ILCS 5/2 -1117 ( West 2002)), t he f

acts of thi s case would squarel y i mpl ic ate the collateral estoppel do ct rine and t ur n t he pur po se o f arbit ra t ion o n its he ad. Acco rd ingly, we fo llow t he ho lding in Per egr ineand f in d that t he pr inciple litigat ion will have pr eclus ive effect , ba rr ing any subse que nt ar bitr at ion o f the
co nt r ibu t io n c laim. Ad dit io na lly, s ub se qu en t t o o r al a r gu men t in t his ma t t er , We nd o ve rso ug ht lea ve t o su bmit
su ppl em en tal au thor i ty i n s upp ort of i ts a rgu men t. Sp ec i f i cal l y , W en dover d i rected our a tten ti on to the comment to t he Ill

in ois Patt ern Jury Instructions which stat es as follows: “In appropri ate cases, consideration nee d al so be gi ven to 740 ILC S 1 00/ 3 ( 199 4) , w hich pr ovid es t hat ‘if equit y req uire s, t he1-06-2379

10 co llec t ive liabilit y o f so me a s a gr o up sha ll co nst it ut e a sing le sha r e. ’ Fo rex amp le, wh er e o ne de fen da nt ’s alle ge d lia bilit y is vicario us, base d o n t he t or t of a not her defend ant (e .g ., mast er and
serv an t), thes e two def

endan ts sh oul d be treated a s a s i

ngl e sh are
and one perce ntag e as si gne d to them

by the j ury .” Il

l i noi s Pattern Jury Instructi ons, C i

vi l , No. B45.0 3-A , Com

men ts, at 200 ( 2006)
. Wendover suggested t hat ONB and Wendover’s liab il ity to the plain

tiff could be treat ed as a si ngle share on the jury v

erdict f orm. Thereaf

ter, ONB file d a response, m ai ntain in g that Wendo ver had w aived a ny right t o a sser t t his new a rg ument as it do es no t sup po rt any arg ument previously m

ade in i ts briefs. We agre e that this argument sho uld have been m ade in Wendover’s br i ef . Even i f wewere to c ons i der i

t, we woul d f i nd thi s a uthori ty unavai l i ng . Th i s c as e doesnot pr es en t a s it ua t io n w he r e o ne de fen da nt ’s liabilit y is vic ar io us no rwo uld it be eq uit ab le t o lump t he m t o ge t he ras a s ing le s ha r e w he r e o ne de fen da nt may u lt imat ely be les s t ha n 2 5 p er ce nt liable or not l i ab l e at al

l . Ac cordi

ngl y , we re j ect Wendover’ssupp l em en tal argum en t. Wi

th that said, we also recognize that ONB an d Wen dover have

provided f

or co ntractual i nde m ni f i cation i n thei r Ag reem en t. The ri ght of i nde m ni ty a nd th e ri ght of contri buti on are sep ar at e and dist inct t heo ries o f rec ove ry and ar e mut ually exclusive r emedies for alloca t ing t he plai ntif f ’sdam ages . Hom

e In su ran ceCo. v . Ci

nc i nn ati In su ran ceCo. , 213 Ill . 2d 307, 316, 821 N.E.2d 2 69, 276

(2004 ). Ind

em ni f i cation i s disti

nct from contri buti on i n that i t shi f ts the e nti re loss f rom one who has

been compel le d to pay the pla in tif f’ s loss to another who actuall y was at f aul t. Kers ch ne r v . W ei ss & C o. , 282 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 49 7, 502, 6 67 N.E.2 d 1351 , 1355 ( 1996)
.1-06-2379

11

W en dov er i s n ot f ore cl ose d f rom deman di n g a rb i tra ti on on i ts r i gh t to i n dem n i f i ca ti on un der i ts A gr eemen

t wi th ONB w h ere th e j ur y i n th e p ri n ci pl e l i ti ga ti on wou l d n ot b e c al l ed up on to de term i ne i ss ue s of i nd em ni f i ca ti on u nd er th ei r con tract, an d w he re th e ri gh t to i nd em ni f i ca ti on f al l s wi thi n the sc ope of

the p arti es’ arb i

tration agree men t. Ac cordi ngl y , f or all of the f oregoi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm the j udgm

en t of the ci rcui t court de nying We nd o ve r ’s mo t io n t o co mpe l ar bit r at io n o f ON B’ s c o nt r ibu t io n c laim. Af f i rmed. GREIM AN and CUN

NINGH AM , JJ., c oncu

r.REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLI

NOIS APPEL LATE COURT

_________________________________________________________________ WAYNE CZ

ARNIK, Pl aintif f,
v. WENDOVER FIN

ANCIAL SERVIC ES, an EDS Company, CLAIMS ADJU STMENT SPECIALI STS, INC., FIDELITY NATIONAL INFOR MATION SOL UTION S, INC. and OLD NAT IONAL B ANCOR P,

Defendants.

______________________________________________ OLD N ATI ONAL

BANCOR

P, Defendant/Counterplaintiff -Appellee,
v. WENDOVE R FIN

ANCIA L SERVI CES, an EDS C ompa ny,

Def endan t/Coun ter def

endan t-Appe llant, (Fidel ity National

Infor mation Sol

utions, Inc. And Cla ims Adjus tmen ts Spe cial

ists , Inc., Counte rde fen dants ).

________________________________________________________________ No. 1-06-2379 Appell ate Cour t of Il linois First Di str

ict, Third Division Filed: June 13, 2007

_________________________________________________________________ PRE SIDI

NG JU STI CE T HEI S del iver ed the opinio n of t he co urt . Grei man an d C un ni ng ha m, J J. , c on cur.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal f ro m the Circuit C our

t of C ook County Honor able D onald J. Sur iano, Judge P residing

_______________________________________________________________ __1-06-2379

For DEFE NDANTS - James P. Buckley APPELLANTS James M. Carlson Ungaretti & Harris LLP 350 0 Th ree Fi rst N at io na l Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 For PLAINTIFF - Thomas P. Scherschel APPELLEE Ell en L. Green SmithAmun dsen LLC 3815 E ast Mai n Str eet, Su ite A-1 St. Charles, IL 60174 Michael R

esis SmithAmun dsen LLC 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60601