1 NOTICE Decision fi led 12/ 03/08. The text of this decision may be changed or correct ed prior

to t he fi ling of a Peti tio n for

Rehearing o r th e disposit ion of

the same. NO. 5-07-0385 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

________________________________________________________________________ KENNETH DAVIS, CHARLES DEATON, FRED ) Appeal f rom the DEATON, ROBERT ENGLE, BOB GANZ, ) Circui t Court of THO MAS SAATHOF F, as Spec ial A dminis trator ) Sal ine County. fo r A nne tt e May , L ARRY NO LE N, A RTHUR ) PHI LL I PS , PHI LI P RI CHERSON, LA RRY ) WINT ERS , and WENDE LL YEAR Y, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) Nos. 04-L-20, 04-L-26, 04-L-27, ) 04-L-30, 04-L-36, 04-L-65, AMERI CAN OP TI CAL CORPORA TI ON, ) & 04-L-89 ) De fend ant an d Th ird-Pa rty Plain tiff-App ellant, ) ) and ) ) MI NNES OTA MI

NI NG AND MAN UFAC TURI NG ) COMPANY, I NC., n/k/a THE 3M COMPANY, ) ) Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff -Appell ee )

) (The Ameri can Coal Company, a/k /a Arch of ) Ill inois et al. , ) Ho nora ble ) Tod d D . Lamb ert, Third-Pa rty Defen dants-App ellees). ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

________________________________________________________________________ NO. 5-07-0386 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

________________________________________________________________________ DAVI D BAS HAM, JOS EPH CL ARK, ROY GENE ) Appeal f rom the CULPEPPER, KENNETH DAVIS, CHARLES ) Circui t Court of DEAT ON, F RED DEA TON, DAVI D DUDLE Y, ) Saline Coun ty. ROBERT ENGL E, B OB GANZ , DANNY GULL EY, )2

KEITH HU GHE S, THOM AS SAATHOFF, as Speci al ) Adm in is tr at orfo r A nne tt e May, BARRY ) McDYER, LA RRY NOL EN, KEVIN PEYT ON, ) ART HU R PH ILLI PS, M ART Y R ICHAR DSO N, ) W ILLIAM STALEY , LYM AN T ANN ER , LYN DE LL ) WALKE R, WENDE LL YEAR Y, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) Nos. 04-L-26, 04-L-27, 04-L-36, ) 04-L-37, 04-L-51, 04-L-52, AMERI CAN OP TI CAL CORPORA TI ON, ) 04-L-53, 04-L-65, 04-L-89, ) 06-L -24, 06-L -37, & De fend ant an d Th ird-Pa rty Plain tiff-App ellant, ) 06-L-38 ) and ) ) MIN E SAFE TY APPLIAN CE S CO MP ANY , ) ) Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff -Appell ee )

) (Amax Coal Company, f/ k/aCyprus Amax Coal ) Company et al. , ) Ho nora ble ) Tod d D . Lamb ert, Third-Pa rty Defen dants-App ellees). ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

________________________________________________________________________ JUST ICE SP OM ER delivered the op inion o f the co urt: In this consoli dated appeal , defendant American Optical Corp. (AOC) appea ls th e orders of the circuit court of Saline Co unty that, inter alia , foun d the s ettlemen t agreem ents entere d into bet

ween the plai ntif

fs in e ach case and def endants Minnes ota Mining and Manufacturi ng Compa ny, I nc ., now k n ow n as T he 3M Co mpa ny (3 M ), and M ine Safe ty Appliances Co mpa ny (M SA), resp ectively, to be in go od fa ith w ithin the meani ng of secti on 2(c) of the Joint Tortfeaso r Contribution Act (the Act) (740 ILCS 1 00/2(c) (W est 2006)) and that dismissed AOC's contributi on claims against all the third -party defen dants in each case. Because we con clud e tha t the t rial c our t's rulin gs were n ot an abu se of discretion, w e affirm both orders. FACTS The facts necessar

y for our disposi tion of

this appeal ar e uncontest ed. The com plaints3

fil ed by t he plaintiffs in each cas e clai m that t he masks and respi rator s manufact ured and suppli ed by 3M, M SA, and AOC to various c oal mine owners/oper ators for use by t he plaintiffs were ineffectiv e in preventi ng the plaint iffs from contracting coal workers ' pneu moc onio sis. Th ere is sim ilar litigation pe ndin g in other counties throu ghout southern Illinois involving the same defend ants. 3M, AO C, and MSA filed t hird- party cl aims f

or contributionagai nst the vari ous mine owners/ operator s where the pl ainti ffs work ed during their career s, all egi ng that the owners /op erato rs did not provide a n adeq uately safe w ork envi ronmentfor the plaintiffs. Some third-p arty m in e d efendants held workers' compensati on liens agai nst some of the pla inti ffs'clai ms for damag es in Saline Co unty and other coun ties, bu t with re gard to o ther pla intiffs, the y did not hold work ers'compensati on liens beca u se they w ere not the last emp loyer of those p laintiffs. See 820 ILCS 310/1(d ), 5(b) (W est 2006). Negoti ations between the v arious parti es commenced, and ultimat ely two set tleme nt agreem ents were reached. In eac h case, t he plaintiff

s and 3M and M SA, re specti vel y, fil ed motions requ esting tha t the settlem ent agre emen ts betw een th em b e fou nd to be in go od fa ith within the meaning of secti on 2(c) of the Act (740 IL CS 100/2(c) (West 2006)). As a part of the set tleme nt ag reement in each case, the plain tif fs and 3M and MSA, respect ive ly, sought a dism issal w ith prejudi ce of al l the c laims agai nst 3M and MSA, as well as the thirdparty clai ms that

the nonset

tli ng defendant, AOC, had fi led a gai nst all the third-p arty defendant

mine owners/ operator s. The settleme nt ag reemen ts also provi ded that 3M and MSA, respe cti vely, retained their contribution claims against the third-party de fendants. AO C fi led a n ob jectio n to the jo int m otio ns fo r a go od- faith find ing. On June 4, 20 07, a hearin g was held on the joint motions for a g ood-fai th fi nding. At the hearing , counselfor AOC explaine d to the c ourt t hat AOC obj ecte d to the proposed orders t hat had been s ubmitt ed with the joint motions for a g ood-fai th fi nding t o the ext ent4

that the propo sed orders w ould extinguis h AOC's contribut ion cla ims ag ainst those thirdparty defendant s that

did nothold worker s' compensati on liens agai nst the clai ms of various plaintif fs. AOC' s o bj ec ti on, as st at edto th e c ir cu it co urt, wa s thatthose third-p arty defe nd ants that di d not hav e workers ' c ompensati on liens to waiv e were payingno consider ationfor their r elease . I n response, counsel f or the plaintiff

s explai ned that

3M and M SA were payingmoney to set tle t heir own li abili ty as well as t he liability of th e third-p arty defendants, t hereb y givin g 3M and M SA the so le right to m aintain a con tribution claim against those third-party de fendants. The plaintiffs' cou nsel ten dered "Ex hibit A" a nd "E xhib it B" to the ci rcuit court during the hearing. These e xhibi ts r efl ecte d the ter ms of the s ettl ements bet ween the plai ntif

fs and 3M and M SA, respecti vely. Counsel for the plai ntiffs expl ained that allthe defendants, including AOC, had stipul ated that the amount of eac h settlement wa s confiden tial. Counsel forAOC then stated to t he court, "And, Judge, just so I' m clear, and I' m su re th is is clear, we're not objec tingto the set tleme nts themselv es or t he amount, and we' re not demanding that we know what the amount of those sett lement s are." Counsel for AOC then explained that AO C w as ob jecting so lely to th e scope of the r elease , and AOC argued that it s thi rdparty clai ms agai nst those thi rd-party defendants that d id not hav e workers ' c ompensati on liens to waiv e should not be extingu ished "with out an y con sidera tion fro m that th ird-pa rty defenda nt." Importantly, exhibi ts A and B we re no t place d in the court file and a re not a part of the record o n appe al. In response t o AOC's argument, t he plai ntif

fs' counsel ag ain st ated that the set tlin g defen dants had a greed to pay a n am oun t sufficien t to cover the third-party defen dants' share of the f ault a s well as their

own. Counsel for t

he plai ntif

fs fur ther expl ained: "[W]hat they're do ing is in affec t [ sic ] cutting out the non[] sett lingdefendant and making

themsel ves t

he exclusive hol der of

the third-party cla ims for contribution5

because they 've bought out the li abili ty of t

he [thi rd-party defendants] a s to ev eryone in the w orld b ut them selves. In affect [ sic ] their co ntributio n actio n is looking to ge t backfrom the [thi rd-party defendants] t he money they ov erpaid me to c ove r the [third-party defend ants'] liability." Co unse l for AO C als o stated to the c ircuit co urt: "[W ]e haven' t ask ed to look at any of these numb ers. The Court may look at these numbers. But I

guess the rea l probl em is youdetermining[ ,] [I ]s thi s okay[ ?] [I]s thi s ingood f

ait h for them to pay s omethingthey al ledg e [ sic ] to be mor e than their pro rata share to get rid of tho se third-party defen dants[?]" Alth ough 3M , M SA, an d AO C all stip ulated that the amo unt o f each settleme nt w ould remain confidential and although the set tleme nt ag reements are not a part of the record on appeal, i t is clear

from the trans cript

of the hearingthat the amo unts p aid by 3 M and M SA
were not apportioned i n the settleme nt ag reements to show the amount paid to s ettl e the plaintif fs' direct claims against them and the amo unt p aid to re lease th e variou s third-p arty defendants. On Ju ne 15, 2 007, the c ircuit court entere d orders granti ng both j oint motions for a good- faith fi nd in g. B ot h o rd er s i nc lu de a p ro vi si on th at di sm is se s w it h p reju di ce AO C 's contributionclai ms agai nst al l the t hird- party def

endants. Both orders also st ate that pursuant to I lli nois S upreme Court Rul e 304(a) ( 210 Il l. 2d R. 304(a )), t here is no just

reason for del ayingeithe r enfor cement or appe al. O n July 12, 2 007 , AO C filed a timely notice of appe al. AN AL Y SIS "[W]hether

a settlement

sati sfie s the good-f

aith r equirement

as contempl ated by the

*** Act is a matt er lef

t to t he discr etion of

the trial c ourt bas ed upon the court 's consider ation of the totality of the circumst ances." Johnson v. United Airlines , 203 Ill. 2d 121, 1 35 (200 3).6

"A good- faith de termina tion is revi ewed on appeal for an abuse of

discreti on." Johnson , 203 Ill. 2d at 135. Al though AOC charact erize s the i ssue to be resol ved by this court as whether the relea se of the non-li enholding thir d-part

y defendant s in t

he settlement

agree m e nts between the plaintiffs and 3M and M SA, respectively, witho ut consideration on the pa rt of,

oron behalf of

, the non- lienhol ding t

hird- party defe ndants, i s inv alid, it i s clear from the record that co nside ration w as pa id on behalf of these third- party defendants, even t hough the
amoun ts were not apportioned in t he settlement

agree ments. The trans cript makes i t cle ar that the plainti ffs, 3M, and MSA all represented that m oney w as paid to the p laintiffs suffi cient

to settle t

he clai ms agai nst them as well as the cl aims ag ainst the non-l ienholding third-p arty defenda nts. Accordin gly, before this cou rt proc eeds to review the circ uit co ur t's determinationthat t

he sett lement

agree m en ts we re reached in good fait h, we must rechara cteri ze the iss ue s on appeal and determine whether a se ttl ing de fendant c an pay
cons ide rati on for the release of oth er po tential tortfe asors a nd, if so , wh ether th e amo unts paid must be appor

tioned in the se ttle me ntag re em en ts . F orth e r ea so ns ex pl ai ne d be lo w, we hold that a

sett lingdefendant

can pay consi derati on for the rel ease o f oth er potential tortfeasors and tha t there is no requirem ent that the settlement am ounts be a pportioned

. In or de r t o a ddr es s t

he is su es be fo re us , we turn to th e te rms of t he Act. The Act creates a statutory right of contribution in ac tions "wh ere 2 or mo re perso ns are subje ct to liabilit y in tort aris ing out of the s ame inj ury to per son or proper ty, or t he same wrongf

ul death" ( 740 IL CS 100/2(a) (West 2006)), to the extent that a to rtfeaso r pay s more than h is pro rata share of the co mmon liability. 740 ILCS 100/2(b) (W est 2006). The Act prov ides in section 2(c) as f

ollows: "(c) When a rele ase or cov enant not to sue or not to enf

orce judgment

is g ive n in good f ait h to on e or mor e pers ons l iabl e in t ort ari sin g out

of the same injury or the
same wrongfuldeath, it does n ot disch arge an y of th e othe r tortfeas ors fro m liability7

forthe inj ury or wrongf

ul death unless i ts terms so provi de but it reduces t he recovery
on any clai m agai nst the others to the e xtent of any amount st ated i n the relea se or the
coven ant, or in t

he am ount of the cons ideratio n actu ally pa id for it, w hiche ver is greater." (Emph asis added .) 740 ILCS 100 /2(c) (W est 2006). According ly, the Act

provi des for t

he rele ase of anytortfeasor unde r the terms of a good- faith set

tl emen t a gr eeme nt. Th e Act al so sets forth the ri ghts of contributi on for tortfeasors wh o have settled w ith a claim ant. P ursua nt t o secti on 2(d) of t he Act, " The tort feasor wh o settles w ith a claim ant pu rsuan t to para graph (c ) is disch arged fro m all liability for any c ontribu tion to any ot he r to rtf ea so r." 74 0 IL C S 1 00 /2 (d ) (W es t 2 00 6) . In additi on, pursu ant to se ctio n 2(e) of the Act , "A tor

tfeas or who sett les wit h a clai mant pursuant to paragraph (c) is not entitled to r ecover

contribution f

rom another

tort feasor whose liability is not extinguished b y the settlement." 74 0 ILCS 100/2(e) (W est 2006). By impli cati on, thi s sect ion would all ow a settlingtort feasor who pay s more than his pro r ata share in ord er to ob tain the relea se of anot her tor tfeas or to mai ntain hi s clai m for cont ribut ion agai nst that tor

tfeas or. In fact, a settlingtort feasor who pay s more than his pro r ata share in order t o effect

uate a se ttl ement that rel eases an othe r tortfeas or w ould be the only party who could proceed againstthe tor tfeas or on whose behalf the set tling tor tfeas or paid. AOC has cited no authori ty that preclude s a defendant

from payi ng consi derati on for the relea se of othe r parti es, an d this co urt has foun d no ne. In fac t, this co urt find s that to preclude a defendant

from doi ng so wo uld discoura ge settlements, wh ich wo uld run co ntrary to one of the major pol icie s underl ying t he Act. S ee Johnson v. United Airlines , 203 I ll. 2d 121, 133 (2003) (hol ding t hat th e two import ant publi c polic y consider ations underlyi ng the Actare the encourag ement of s ettl ements and t he equit able apportionment of dam age s among tortfeasors). In addi tion, such a rule wo uld be co ntradictory to the langua ge of the Act itself, which stat es that i f the t erms of t he settlement

so prov ide, a r elease of other tort feasor s may8

be effec tiv e and provi des, by impl icat ion, t hat a set tling tor tfeas or who pays more t han his pro rata share i n or der to procure t he rele ase of anot

her tor tfeas or is e ntitled to r ecover contributionfrom the tort feasor whose liabi lit

y is re l eased by t

he s ettl eme nt . 74 0 I LCS 100/2(c), (e) (W est 2006). In add it ion, t

his cour t has i nterpr eted sec tion 2( d) of the Act and has found that
nons ettl ing defendant s are pr ecluded f rom proceedi ng in c ontribution ag ainst all t he defendant s who are released b y the terms of a goo d-faith settlement, regardless of whet her they are par ties to thesettlement agreement
. Brown v. Union Tank Car Co. , 197 I ll. App. 3d 357 , 361 (199 0). Ac cord ingly, if the te rms of t

he settlement , including t he rele ase of t

he non-li enholding

thir d-part

y defendant s, were ent ered into in good f aith, the ci rcu it c ourt prop erly extinguis hed AOC 's contribution clai ms against t hose thir d-part

y defendant s. "The 'g ood fait h' of a sett lement

is the only limitation which the Act places o n the right to settle[,] and it is th e good -faith nature of a settlement

that e xtinguishes t

he contribution l iabil ity of the settl ing tort feasor." Johnson , 203 Ill. 2d at 128. Alth ough the r eco rd m ake s cleartha t the amounts pai d by 3M and M SA were not apporti one d in the settl ement agreements to show the amount paid to settl e the plainti ffs' direct claims agai nst them and the amount pai d to rel ease the various t hird-party defendants,
we find no r equirement

in the A ct or any ot

her authority t

hat the amounts be s o apporti oned. As explained above, allowing a set tlingtortfeasor

to pay more than his pro rata share in
or der to pro cure th e relea se of a noth er tortfea sor pro motes one o f the imp ortant p ubli c polici es u n derlyi ng the Act–the encourag ement of s ettl ements. In or der to ens ure that the sett lement

agree ments pr omoted the ot her import ant publi c polic y underlyi ng the Act–the equita ble apporti onment of damages among tort feasor s, the c ircui t court , under the standards enunciat ed in Johnson , was requir ed to vi ew the amounts of the set tleme nts i n relation to t

he prob ability of recov ery, the defenses rais ed, and the pot entia l leg al li abili ty of a ll t he9

tortfeasors whose liabilit y would be discharged by the settlements. 203 Il l. 2d at 137. For each settleme nt, if

the ci rcuit

court f ound, in l ight

of thes e fact ors, t

hat the amount

paid was
a reasonabl e amount t o discharge the liability of a ll t he tort feasor s to be r elease d by the settleme nt, the goo d-faith re quirem ent of th e Act w ould be sa tisfied be caus e AO C w ould
rece ive a setoff in t

he amount of the se ttl ements. See 7 40 ILCS 100 /2(c) (W est 2006). Alth ough an apporti onment in the se ttlemen t agreem ents to s how the am oun ts 3M and M SA paid to settle t

he plai ntif

fs' direct clai ms agai nst them and the amount s paid to rele ase the vari ous thir d-pa rt y defendant s mig ht hav e aided t he circ uit cour

t in i ts analysis, there was nothing preventing the circuit cou rt from condu cting this analysis in the aggregate. Fu rther more, although the Act does not def

ine the term "g ood fait h," the Il linoi s Supr eme Cou rt has held that w hen a co urt decides w hether a sett lement was negotiate d in good fait h, it must st rik e a balance between the two import ant publi c polic y consider ations underlyi ng the Ac t–the e ncou rageme nt of se tt lemen ts and t he equit able apportionment of damages among tortfeasors. Johnson , 203 I ll. 2d at 1 33. To that e nd, the se ttl ing parti es carry the initialburden of maki ng a prel iminar y showing of good faith. Johnson , 203 I ll. 2d at 132. This burde n is satisfi ed if t he settlingparti es show the ex istence of a lega lly valid sett lement

agree men t, i nc ludinga showing t hat consi derati on was giv en and recei ved and that the set tleme nt is fair

and reasonabl e in light of the aforementioned public polici es. Johnson , 203 Ill. 2d at 13 1-32 . Th e bur den th en sh ifts to th e nonset tling defen dant to establisha lack of good faith by a prepon derance o f t he evidence

. Johnson , 203 I ll. 2d at 133. As ex plaine d abo ve, "[t]he amo unt o f a sett lement must be v iewed in re lati on to the prob ability of recov ery, the defenses rais ed, and the settling party's potential legal liability." Johnson , 203 I ll. 2d at 137. In orderto d etermin e w hethe r the circ uit cou rt abus ed its dis cretion in its determinationof the f oregoin g, th is court would have t o revi ew the amounts of the10

settl ements. However, "Exhibi t A" and"Exhibi t B," w hich w ere ten dered to the c ircuit
cour t, are not a

part of the record on appeal. AOC co nsented to the confidential ity of these settleme nts and did not r equire t hat the y be placed i n the court fil e, under se al or ot

herwise. "Onreview, the ap pellant has the b urden o f presenting the cou rt with an ad equate re cor d regarding the cl aimed error [ci tati on], and any doubt s which may ari se from t he incompleteness of the r ecord willbe resol ved ag ainst the appel lant

[citation]." Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc. , 169 Ill. 2d 525, 5 46-47 (1 996). According ly, we must pr esume that the circuit court's determination on this issue w as proper. CONCL USI ON For the for egoi ng reaso ns, the orde rs of the circuit court t hat g ranted t

he joint motions fora good-f

aith f indingfil ed by the pl ainti ffs and 3M and MSA, respective ly, are aff irmed.

Affi rmed.

APPLE TO N an d CH APM AN, JJ., c oncur.NO. 5-07-0385 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

___________________________________________________________________________________ KENNETH DAVIS, CHARLES DEATON, FRED ) Appeal f rom the DEATON, ROBERT ENGLE, BOB GANZ, ) Circui t Court of THO MAS SAATHOF F, as Spec ial A dminis trator ) Sal ine County. fo r A nne tt e May , L ARRY NO LE N, A RTHUR ) PHI LL I PS , PHI LI P RI CHERSON, LA RRY ) WINT ERS , and WENDE LL YEAR Y, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) Nos. 04-L- 20, 04-L- 26, 04-L- 27, ) 04-L-30, 04-L-36, 04-L-65, AMERI CAN OP TI CAL CORPORA TI ON, ) & 04-L-89 ) De fend ant an d Th ird-Pa rty Plain tiff-App ellant, ) ) and ) ) MI NNES OTA MI

NI NG AND MAN UFAC TURI NG ) COMPANY, I NC., n/k/a THE 3M COMPANY, ) ) Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff -Appell ee )

) (The Ameri can Coal Company, a/k /a Arch of ) Ill inois et al. , ) Ho nora ble ) Tod d D . Lamb ert, Third-Pa rty Defen dants-App ellees). ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

________________________________________________________________________ NO. 5-07-0386 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

________________________________________________________________________ DAVI D BAS HAM, JOS EPH CL ARK, ROY GENE ) Appeal f rom the CULPEPPER, KENNETH DAVIS, CHARLES ) Circui t Court of DEAT ON, F RED DEA TON, DAVI D DUDLE Y, ) Saline Coun ty. ROBERT ENGL E, B OB GANZ , DANNY GULL EY, ) KEITH HU GHE S, THOM AS SAATHOFF, as Speci al ) Adm in is tr at orfo r A nne tt e May, BARRY ) McDYER, LA RRY NOL EN, KEVIN PEYT ON, ) ART HU R PH ILLI PS, M ART Y R ICHAR DSO N, ) W ILLIAM STALEY , LYM AN T ANN ER , LYN DE LL ) WALKE R, WENDE LL YEAR Y, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) Nos. 0 4-L-26, 04 -L-27, 04-L-36 , ) 04-L-37, 04-L-51, 04-L-52, AMERI CAN OP TI CAL CORPORA TI ON, ) 04-L-53, 04-L-65, 04-L-89, ) 06-L -24, 06-L -37, & De fend ant an d Th ird-Pa rty Plain tiff-App ellant, ) 06-L-38 ) and )MIN E SAFE TY APPLIAN CE S CO MP ANY , ) ) Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff -Appell ee )

) (Amax Coal Company, f/ k/aCyprus Amax Coal ) Company et al. , ) Ho nora ble ) Tod d D . Lamb ert, Third-Pa rty Defen dants-App ellees). ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opini on Fi led : December 3, 2008

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable Stephen L. Spomer, J.

Honorable Thomas R. Apple ton, J. , and Hon orable M elissa A. Cha pman, J., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys Deb ra K. Zahalsky, Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco , Brown, Thr elk eld & Dawso n, LL P, for 224 St. Louis S treet , Edwardsvi lle, IL 62025 Appe llant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys John J. Kurowski , Candice C. Kusmer, Kurowsk i, Bail ey & Shultz, LL C, 24 Bronze for Pointe, Swansea, I L 62226 (for The 3M C ompany) Appell ees K. Lin dsay Rakers, Rob ertRow land, G oldenbe rg, Heller, Antognoli & R owlan d, P.C .,

222 7 Sou th State R oute 1 57, P .O. Bo x 95 9, E dw ardsville, IL 62 025 (for K enne th Davis, Charles Deat on, Robert Eng le, Bob Ganz, and Thomas Sa athoff , as Spe cial Administrator) William A. Schmit

t, Dayna L. J ohnson, Greensf elder, Hemker & Gale, P. C., 12 Wo lf Creek Drive, S wansea, IL 62226 (for Arch of Il linois) W . Jeffrey M uskop f, M ark R. F eldha us, Las hly & Bae r, P.C ., 714 Locu st Street, St. Louis, MO 63101 -1699 (for M ine Safety Applianc es Co.) Theo dore F. K omm ers, G ould & R atner LL P, 22 2 N . LaSalle Stre et, Su ite 800, Chicago, IL 60601; Pamela Lacey, Att orney at Law, 123 East Main Stre et, P.O. Box 39, B enton, IL 6281 2 (for Freem an U nited Co al Minin g Corp.)

___________________________________________________________________________________