Court Opinion

ID: 9727899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:52:32.500951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.220359
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE LINDBERG, dissenting in part: I concur in that portion of the majority opinion granting the petition to intervene. I also agree that the use of loan receipt agreements is not unlimited. However I am unable to find anything improper in the loan agreement at issue here. This agreement was not kept secret (Gatto v. Walgreen Drug Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 513, 337 N.E.2d 23, cert. denied sub nom. Gatto v. Calumet Flexicore Corp. (1976), 425 U.S. 936, 48 L. Ed. 2d 178, 96 S. Ct. 1669), nor was it entered into after the judgment below (Kerns v. Engelke (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 154; Harris v. Algonquin Ready Mix (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 445, 332 N.E.2d 58). As the following chart based on varying jury verdicts indicates, there is very little difference in effect between the “in excess of *20,000” term employed here and the agreement approved in Reese: Hypothetical jury $0 or no liability $10,000 $35,000 $50,000 verdict of: Loan agreement of $20,000 as approved in Reese "In Excess of $20,000” agreement as in Popovich liability of defendant Crystal Lake 0 0 Amount paid by Reliance after loan repayment $20,000 $20,000 Total paid to plaintiff $20,000 $20,000 Reese Popovich Reese; Popovich Reese Popovich $10,000 $10,000 35,000 $35,000 ?50,000 $50,000 $10,000 $20,000 0 $5,000 0 0 $20,000 $30,000 , 35,000 $40,000 50,000 $50,000 i i i i i i In sum, if there is either no liability or *40,000 or more liability there is no difference in result between a Reese and Popovich type of agreement. If the verdict is within the range between these limits, the plaintiff stands to recover a greater amount under the type of agreement at issue here. However, these additional funds come from Reliance Insurance Company — the party that agreed to these terms — and not from defendant Crystal Lake. Thus if the purpose of a loan agreement is to provide a quick and sure source of funds for the plaintiff while at the same time providing some protections for the remaining defendant(s), this purpose is well served by the agreement in question. Also I do not see how a Reese type agreement is any less an absolute payment than the one here. As the above chart indicates, there will be cases under both types of agreements that funds received by the plaintiff will not be repaid. The only difference is that in some cases the amount of repayment will differ according to the terms of the agreement. For the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that calls for applying the *20,000 payment as partial satisfaction of the *35,000 judgment.