Court Opinion

ID: 9744050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:52:37.664032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.379348
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RYAN, dissenting: The opinion of the majority states that it must overrule LeMaster v. Amsted Industries, Inc. (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 729, which I consider to be a correct decision, because, in the court’s words, it “was decided without the benefit of [Doyle v. Rhodes (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 1].” This statement is not exactly correct, because the court, in LeMaster, cited the appellate court holding in Doyle v. Rhodes (1982), 109 Ill. App. 3d 590, which, the LeMaster court noted, held that the “exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act do not bar a third-party action for contribution against the original plaintiff’s employer.” (LeMaster, 110 Ill. App. 3d at 734.) That part of the appellate court holding in Doyle was affirmed by this court. (Doyle, 101 Ill. 2d 1.) The court, in LeMaster, did not reject the appellate court holding in Doyle, but denied the issues before it on the basis of whether the settlement between the employee and the employer was a good-faith settlement, which is required by “An Act in relation to contribution among joint tortfeasors” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 70, par. 301 et seq.) (the Contribution Act). Therefore, the appellate court, in LeMaster, contrary to the statement in the majority opinion in this case, did have the benefit of the holding of Doyle v. Rhodes. Doyle did not deal with the question before us, which is whether the settlement between the employer and the employee was made in good faith. Doyle dealt with the right of contribution between a third-party tortfeasor and the employer. A majority of this court, in Doyle, concluded that the employer was “subject to liability in tort” within the meaning of the Contribution Act, unless the employer asserted the defense of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and therefore the Contribution Act applied. I will discuss this further later in this dissent. In our case, we find an employer paying to an employee $24,000 and, in addition, giving the employee a waiver of the statutory workers’ compensation lien in the amount of $149,973. What was the consideration given in return by the employee to the employer? There was none. If the employee had made a demand on the employer for a settlement of his tort claim, or if he would have sued the employer, all the employer had to do was to draft a simple answer stating that the employer was not liable in damages because of the provisions of section 5(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 138.5(a)). Instead of this simple response, as noted above, the employer paid the employee $24,000 and relinquished the statutory lien under the Workers’ Compensation Act of $149,973. This settlement could not have been made in good faith, and the trial court found that the settlement evidenced a lack of good faith on the part of the plaintiff. The settlement was made solely to defeat the third-party plaintiff’s claim for contribution. As further evidence that there was no consideration for this settlement, I point out that the settlement discloses that plaintiff received from the employer both compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act and payment for a common law claim. The settlement releases a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act, which shows that the plaintiff has received or is receiving compensation payments. The $24,000 cash payment, plus the release of the lien, is payment for a common law tort claim. Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 138.11) states that “[t]he compensation herein provided, together with the provisions of this Act, shall be the measure of responsibility of any employer ***.” This language, to me, means that an employee cannot collect both compensation payments and payments under a common law tort claim from the employer, or at least if he does, he has given the employer no consideration for the additional payment. This court addressed the double payment question in Rhodes v. Industrial Comm’n (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 467, 471, and stated that an employee “cannot recover payments from the employer under both actions.” The holding in Rhodes is clear that the employee cannot recover both at common law and under the Workers’ Compensation Act. We are, in this case, making bad law to correct an inequity caused by what I perceived, and continue to believe to be, the bad law of Doyle. The employer hiere was trying to shield itself from the contribution claim of the third-party tortfeasor under the provisions of the Contribution Act, which provides that a tortfeasor who makes a good-faith settlement with a claimant is discharged from any contribution to any other tortfeasor. For the reason stated above, I find that the settlement was not made in good faith. This was the holding of the trial court in this case, which I find not to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. This court should think seriously about reconsidering Doyle. I pointed out in my dissent in that case what I considered to be the faulty logic of the holding. In Mason v. F. Lli Luigi & Franco Dal Maschio (7th Cir. 1987), 832 F.2d 383, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the criticism of the Doyle holding contained in my dissent in that case, but stated that even though I may have been correct, it was bound to follow the law as stated in Doyle. Also, as noted in Mason, a commentator has been critical of the Doyle holding. See Ossey, Workers’ Compensation Limits as a Legal Fiction in Illinois, 74 Ill. B.J. 22, 28 (1985). I noted above that the employer in this case was simply trying to protect itself against the holding of Doyle. Thus, in Doyle, the pro-contribution advocates prevailed. The question presented to us in this case results from tactics adopted by the anti-contribution forces to protect against Doyle. Next we will find the pro-contribution forces devising new tactics to offset the holding of this case. Instead of perpetuating this merry-go-round, I suggest that we end this chase by providing a merciful demise for Doyle. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.