Camper v. Burnside Construction Co.
998 N.E.2d 1264
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- In 2006 Michael Camper (employee of Neptune) was injured falling in a manhole; he sued general contractors Burnside and manufacturer Welch (Camper I).
- Welch filed a third-party contribution claim against Camper’s employer Neptune in Camper I; Camper later settled with Burnside and Neptune and the court found that settlement in good faith and dismissed Welch’s Camper I contribution claim with prejudice (Feb. 13, 2009 order).
- Camper voluntarily dismissed his remaining claims against Welch in April 2009 and refiled against Welch within one year (Camper II). Welch then again filed third-party claims against Neptune in Camper II: (1) contribution and (2) indemnification based on a purchase order indemnity clause.
- The trial court dismissed Welch’s Camper II contribution claim with prejudice as barred by res judicata (Dec. 21, 2011; affirmed Feb. 27, 2012), and later dismissed the indemnification claim with prejudice (May 11, 2012).
- On appeal Welch argued res judicata did not bar either claim and asserted exceptions (express reservation; extraordinary circumstances); Neptune argued res judicata applied and the indemnity clause is void under Illinois’ Anti-Indemnity Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Welch) | Defendant's Argument (Neptune) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Welch’s Camper II contribution claim | The prior voluntary dismissal by Camper of Camper I had no preclusive effect on Welch’s third-party claim; elements of res judicata not satisfied | The Feb. 13, 2009 order dismissed Welch’s Camper I contribution claim with prejudice after a good-faith settlement; res judicata bars the later, identical claim | Dismissal affirmed: prior involuntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 273 was a final judgment on the merits; all res judicata elements met |
| Whether res judicata bars Welch’s Camper II indemnification claim | Indemnification is a contract claim distinct from tort-based contribution; therefore no identity of cause of action | The indemnity claim arises from the same operative facts and could have been raised earlier; res judicata applies | Dismissal affirmed: transactional test shows identity of cause of action; indemnification barred by res judicata |
| Whether the court’s prior orders or counsel’s bystander report reserved Welch’s right to refile third-party claims | Court statements and subsequent orders (and bystander’s report) reserved Welch’s right to maintain third-party claims later | The Feb. 13, 2009 order expressly dismissed Welch’s third-party claim with prejudice and denied leave to amend; the bystander’s report is not a certified transcript and cannot override the order | Rejected: no express reservation in the record; uncertified bystander’s report inadmissible to create an exception to res judicata |
| Whether indemnity clause is enforceable | The purchase order indemnity creates contractual indemnity in Welch’s favor | The indemnity clause covers construction-related work and is void under Illinois Anti-Indemnity Act | Affirmed alternative ground: clause falls within Anti-Indemnity Act and is unenforceable, so indemnification claim also fails |
Key Cases Cited
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (Ill. 1998) (adopts transactional test for identity of cause of action in res judicata analysis)
- Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325 (Ill. 1996) (lists exceptions to claim-splitting rule and principles on preclusion)
- SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill. App. 3d 893 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (settlement-ordered dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata)
- Avery v. Auto-Pro, Inc., 313 Ill. App. 3d 747 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (prior involuntary dismissal of counterclaim operated as adjudication on the merits and barred later identical counterclaim)
- Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. v. Trademaven, L.L.C., 391 Ill. App. 3d 309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (indemnification claim barred where it arose from same factual nucleus as prior action)
- Radosta v. Chrysler Corp., 110 Ill. App. 3d 1066 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) (indemnification action barred by res judicata when it arose from same operative facts as prior suit)