Opinion ID: 792943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the settlement made in good faith?

Text: 44 The District Court found that the settlement was made in good faith. Northwestern disputes this finding with two arguments. First, the settlement shifted an inequitable share of liability to Northwestern. Second, the settlement was motivated by a desire to impede Northwestern's contribution claims. 45 Northwestern claims that the settlement amount is not commensurate with the settling defendants' liability. It characterizes the $75,000-plus settlement consideration as nominal. But Wheeler found so little value in his claims against the settling defendants that he dismissed them. The low settlement amount simply reflects his valuation of the claims. Northwestern continues to press its claims that Wheeler died from the ingestion of ephedra, but if it is correct, it will win at trial under proximate causation or contributory negligence. 46 As previously pointed out, Northwestern finds alarming the difference between the $75,000 cash settlement and the millions claimed by Wheeler. But Illinois courts have dismissed similar arguments. See, e.g., Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc., 317 Ill. App.3d 628, 251 Ill.Dec. 363, 740 N.E.2d 444, 455-56 (2000) (noting that, because the settling defendant owed no duty, zero would have been reasonable, so the $5,000 settlement payment did not suggest bad faith); cf. Alvarez v. Fred Hintze Constr., 247 Ill.App.3d 811, 187 Ill.Dec. 364, 617 N.E.2d 821, 824-25 (1993) (holding that a settlement is not unreasonable just because the plaintiff's actual damages exceed the amount of the settlement when the claim was for over $1 million and the settlement was for $400,000). In Johnson itself, the defendant city claimed absolute immunity from tort liability, and at the time the plaintiffs settled with the city — for $1,000 per plaintiff — they had not directly sued the city. 271 Ill.Dec. 258, 784 N.E.2d at 823. The Court found the nominal settlement sound given the relative weakness of the claims, as shown by plaintiffs' well-researched decision not to sue the city. Id. The District Court here did a similar analysis, basing the reasonableness of the settlement amount in part on Wheeler's initial decision not to sue the settling defendants. While the Court's analysis arguably could have been more probing, the counter-argument is to ask why the need where the answer appeared so intuitive. No matter what, the Court's determination was not an abuse of discretion. 47 Northwestern disputes the District Court's good-faith determination for two additional reasons. First, Northwestern argues that the settlement was simply a tactical attempt to get the case remanded back to Illinois state court. The Johnson Court dismissed the argument that motivations of matters of venue alone constituted bad faith and noted that the forum benefits of a settlement f[ell] short of being evidence of collusion or wrongdoing. Id. at 823-24. That Court simply held it to be one factor in the totality of the circumstances in the good-faith determination. Id. at 824. This is undoubtedly correct. 48 Second, Northwestern argues that, because Wheeler had no claims against the settling defendants when the settlement was approved due to the purported expiration of the statute of limitations, the only purpose of the settlement could have been to block its contribution claims against Nutraquest. But as of the date Wheeler agreed to settle with Nutraquest pending Court approval, he could have reasserted his claims against the settling defendants. He did not, perhaps simply motivated to dispense with the claims for good. Conjecture aside, the Court found nothing in the record to suggest that the settlement was motivated by a desire to frustrate Northwestern's contribution claims. In re Nutraquest, mem. op. at 12. Moreover, avoiding contribution is not per se evidence of bad faith, Alvarez, 187 Ill.Dec. 364, 617 N.E.2d at 824, so long as the settlement is not grossly disproportionate to the settling defendant's relative liability, Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. AON Corp., 344 Ill.App.3d 163, 279 Ill.Dec. 356, 800 N.E.2d 424, 435 (2003). Here we have already determined that the settlement was not grossly disproportionate to Wheeler's claims against Nutraquest. 5 49 In this context, finding good faith appears the only sensible course under the circumstances presented. The only abuse of discretion would be to conclude otherwise.