Court Opinion

ID: 9726250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:39:17.429761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.746050
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CHAPMAN, dissenting: I dissent, and an explanation of my dissent might benefit from some actual figures and a hypothetical result. If this case had gone to verdict on both the original complaint and the third-party action, and if the plaintiff had made the same recovery of $484,436 from Korte-Plocher, and if the jury had also found Rednour to be 50% at fault, then the distribution of the proceeds would have been as follows: Plaintiff: $484,436 from Korte-Plocher. Korte-Plocher: 50% or $242,218 from Rednour, but this recovery would be limited to the amount of the workers’ compensation paid ($206,236.49) by Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp. (1991), 146 Ill. 2d 155, 585 N.E.2d 1023. The result at this stage: Plaintiff would be plus $484,436, Korte-Plocher would be minus $278,200 (-$484,436 + $206,236.49), and Rednour would be minus $206,236.49. Now section 5(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act comes into play. If there had been no waiver of the lien, Rednour would be entitled to recover from the plaintiff-employee the amount it had paid under the Workers’ Compensation Act, $206,236.49 less a 25% fee and its pro rata share of the costs ($51,559.12), or $154,677.37, which would leave the parties in the following posture: (this calculation ignores the pro rata share of the costs) Plaintiff would be plus $329,758.63 ($484,436 - $154,677.37) Korte-Plocher would be minus $278,200 (-$484,436 + $206,236) Rednour would be minus $51,559.12 (-$206,236.49 to Korte) (+$206,236.49 from plaintiff) (-$51,559.12 to plaintiff). Keeping these final figures in mind, we turn to the settlement and subsequent verdict actually reached in this case. Plaintiff would be +$484,436 (verdict against Korte-Plocher). Korte-Plocher gets nothing from Rednour on its third-party action because Rednour was dismissed based on the trial court’s finding of a good-faith settlement under the Contribution Act. Although Korte-Plocher receives nothing from Rednour on the third-party action, it is entitled to a reduction of the plaintiff’s recovery against it of "any amount stated in the release on the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration actually paid for it.” (Emphasis added.) (740 ILCS 100/2(c) (West 1992).) The parties agree that the emphasized phrase of the Contribution Act is the only portion applicable here, but they disagree on what "the amount of the consideration actually paid for it” was in this case. What was that amount? Rednour waived its lien of $206,236.49, but the amount of consideration actually paid to plaintiff was $154,677.37 because Rednour would have to pay plaintiff’s attorney $51,559.12. What are the final figures under the settlement scenario? Plaintiff would be plus $329,758.63 (+$484,436 from Korte-Plocher — $154,667.37 to Rednour). Korte-Plocher would be minus $329,758.63 (-$484,436 + $154,667.37 (credit)). Rednour would be minus $206,236.49 paid in workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff does not make a double recovery; his recovery is identical. There is a difference in the ultimate results for Korte-Plocher and Rednour, but the difference is created by the different means of the reduction of the judgment against Korte-Plocher. In the first scenario, Korte-Plocher’s obligation would have been reduced by the amount it could have recovered on its third-party contribution action if the settlement had not been effected. In the second, actual-case scenario, Korte-Plocher’s obligation is reduced by the amount of consideration that Rednour actually paid to plaintiff in its good-faith settlement. The majority equates the amount of money paid by Rednour to plaintiff ($206,236.49) to satisfy its obligations to its employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act with the "amount of the consideration actually paid for” settlement of the third-party action. But the amount actually paid in consideration of the dismissal of the third-party action is only that amount that Rednour could have recovered from plaintiff if the case had been completely tried, and that is $206,236.49 less the 25% attorney fee and pro rata share of the costs. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.