Barnai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
93 N.E.3d 534
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Oct. 16, 2007 plaintiff Frank Barnai was injured at a Wal‑Mart construction site while employed by Summit Fire Protection (Summit). Barnai sued Wal‑Mart (owner), International Contractors, Inc. (ICI, general contractor), and Nuline Technologies, Inc. (electrical subcontractor).
- Wal‑Mart, ICI, and Nuline asserted contribution claims against Summit. Barnai later settled with Wal‑Mart, ICI, and Nuline for $5,073,463.71 and received assignments of their contribution claims against Summit; Summit did not contribute to the settlement.
- The circuit court entered a good‑faith finding for that settlement over Summit’s objection; the settlement document and internal allocations were not placed in the record at that hearing.
- At trial on Wal‑Mart’s and ICI’s contribution claims (as assigned to Barnai) the court submitted a verdict form that required apportionment only among Wal‑Mart, ICI, and Summit (excluded Nuline). Jury apportionment: Summit 52%, ICI 38%, Wal‑Mart 10%.
- The court entered judgment for 52% of the settlement (less Nuline’s $950,000 contribution) and denied Summit’s posttrial motions. Summit appealed; after jurisdictional issues the appellate court considered (1) the sufficiency of the good‑faith finding and (2) whether Nuline had to be included in the apportionment for Contribution Act purposes.
- The appellate court vacated the good‑faith finding, held the verdict form was legally erroneous for excluding Nuline (prejudicing Summit), reversed denial of new trial, vacated the monetary judgment, and remanded for a new good‑faith hearing and new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Barnai's Argument | Summit's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement was made in "good faith" | Good‑faith finding proper despite no allocation documents in motion; sanctions were procedural not monetary | Good‑faith finding improper because no allocations among settling defendants were presented so court couldn’t assess reasonableness | Vacated good‑faith finding; remand for new hearing using settlement's allocation amounts |
| Whether jury had to apportion fault to Nuline (a settling, nonparty contributor) under the Contribution Act | Excluding Nuline was permissible; jury form as used was adequate | Jury must be allowed to apportion fault to all who contributed to the settlement fund, including Nuline | Verdict form excluding Nuline misstated law; reversal and remand for new trial (Nuline must be included in apportionment) |
| Whether Summit waived the verdict‑form challenge by procedural failures | Barnai: Summit waived by not objecting at instruction conference, tendering an identical form, and not raising in posttrial motion | Summit: waiver rule can be overlooked to prevent manifest injustice and maintain uniform precedent; IPI instructions previously misled parties | Court declined to enforce waiver; excuse justified because IPI 600.16 historically forbade including nonparty settlor and enforcing waiver would cause manifest injustice |
| Whether Summit was entitled to setoff for insurer payments or judgment n.o.v. because assignments were nullities | Barnai: Summit forfeited setoff argument by not raising it posttrial; assignment validity premature to decide | Summit: insurer payments should reduce common liability; assignments may be null if settling parties paid only pro rata shares | Setoff/assignment issues forfeited or premature on this record; to be addressed, if appropriate, on retrial or after new good‑faith hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc., 317 Ill. App. 3d 628 (explains requirement to assess whether settlor’s payment is within a reasonable range of its fair share)
- In re Guardianship of Babb, 162 Ill. 2d 153 (settlement good‑faith inquiry standard cited)
- Zellers v. Hernandez, 406 Ill. App. 3d 124 (defines common liability as amount actually paid in a good‑faith settlement)
- Mallaney v. Dunaway, 178 Ill. App. 3d 827 (same principle on common liability and settlement amount)
- Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 161 Ill. 2d 267 (common liability equals good‑faith settlement amount used to extinguish liability)
- Truszewski v. Outboard Motor Marine Corp., 292 Ill. App. 3d 558 (holding that jury must apportion fault to all who contributed to settlement fund, including nonparty settlors)
- Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182 (reversal required where jury instruction misstated law and caused serious prejudice)