Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Reproductive Genetics Institute
103 N.E.3d 346
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- NECC purchased Cryobank assets (including donor N-170’s sperm) and later sold N-170’s sperm to the Kretchmars; the Genetics Institute had tested donor samples and in 1992 reported N-170 did not carry the delta-F508 cystic fibrosis mutation.
- A child conceived from donor N-170’s sperm was born with cystic fibrosis; testing later showed N-170 was a carrier.
- The Kretchmars sued NECC in Oklahoma; NECC (insured by Lloyd’s) settled the Oklahoma action and Lloyd’s paid the settlement.
- Genetics Institute was not a party to the Oklahoma suit and Lloyd’s did not assert a contribution claim against Genetics Institute in that litigation.
- Lloyd’s then sued Genetics Institute in Illinois for contribution (and other counts). The trial court dismissed Lloyd’s contribution claim under Laue v. Leifheit; Lloyd’s appealed.
- The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding Laue (and Harshman) require contribution claims to be asserted in the pending underlying action even if the defendant was not a party or would not have been subject to personal jurisdiction there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois law permits filing a separate contribution action after settling an out-of-state underlying suit where the third party wasn’t sued there | Lloyd’s: Laue should not apply because Oklahoma lacked personal jurisdiction over Genetics Institute, so Lloyd’s could not have asserted contribution there; public policy favors allowing a separate action | Genetics Institute: Laue and section 5 of the Contribution Act require contribution claims be raised in the pending action; Lloyd’s failure to bring it there bars a separate suit | Court: Affirmed dismissal. Laue and Harshman control; section 5 requires contribution claims be asserted in the underlying proceeding even if the defendant wasn’t sued or jurisdiction would have been lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laue v. Leifheit, 105 Ill. 2d 191 (statutory reading: contribution must be asserted in pending action)
- Harshman v. DePhillips, 218 Ill. 2d 482 (contribution claim must be raised in underlying action even if another jurisdiction denied leave or would have)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (legislative amendment to allow separate contribution actions declared unconstitutional)
- Lesnak v. City of Waukegan, 137 Ill. App. 3d 845 (Laue’s rule applies regardless of whether underlying action settled)
- Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 366 Ill. App. 3d 730 (lower courts bound to follow Illinois Supreme Court precedent)