2022 IL App (1st) 210274
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- In 2011 a multi-vehicle collision in Iowa killed tow-operator Jesse Inman and three others; Howe Freightways (Howe) employed one of the truck drivers involved. Plaintiff Lisa Inman sued Howe and Hiner entities; the jury found both Howe and Hiner Transport liable and awarded $19,010,273, apportioning 57% to Howe and 43% to Hiner Transport.
- During pretrial proceedings the court imposed discovery sanctions against Howe, deeming admitted certain maintenance/training failures; plaintiff and the Hiner entities then entered a high‑low, good‑faith settlement obligating Hiner Transport and triggering Contribution Act protections that barred contribution claims against it.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed liability findings generally but reversed the exclusion of a witness’s (Green’s) testimony and remanded for a new trial limited to allocation of fault (the excluded testimony could affect apportionment). The supreme court denied leave to appeal; mandate issued.
- On remand Howe moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, to reopen discovery (to redepose plaintiff on damages), and to release the appeal bond; the circuit court denied all motions. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing the remand was limited to allocation and, because Hiner Transport settled in good faith and cannot be apportioned fault, Howe alone must bear the full judgment.
- The circuit court granted plaintiff summary judgment for $17,235,273 (jury award less setoff), denied bond release, continued the stay on the existing appeal bond, and held postjudgment interest accrues from the original May 18, 2017 judgment. Howe appealed; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Howe's forum non conveniens motion | Inman: Illinois forum warranted; Illinois has connections (Howe HQ, alleged training/maintenance failures) and plaintiff's choice gets deference | Howe: circumstances changed after settlements/dismissals; Iowa (Poweshiek County) is substantially more convenient (witnesses, site, congestion) and motion timely on changed circumstances | Denial affirmed — after balancing private and public factors court reasonably found factors did not strongly favor transfer to Iowa |
| Whether the court erred in denying Howe's motion to reopen discovery to redepose plaintiff on damages | Inman: remand limited to allocation of fault; damages not at issue so reopening unnecessary | Howe: appellate mandate did not limit remand to liability; damages remain open so reopening discovery is appropriate | Denial affirmed — mandate and opinion limited retrial to allocation; reopening discovery was not warranted |
| Whether summary judgment for plaintiff was proper (i.e., only Howe can be liable at retrial) | Inman: appellate decision affirming Howe as proximate cause + Hiner's good‑faith settlement (Contribution Act) precludes contribution and listing settlor on verdict — no triable issue who could be liable at retrial | Howe: remand could include damages/other issues; retains right to present sole‑proximate‑cause defense and to litigate contribution issues | Grant affirmed — as a matter of law no party other than Howe could be apportioned fault at retrial, and Howe had forfeited posttrial/appeal challenges to damages and the settlement; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether the appeal bond should be released / stay continued | Inman: bond should remain until appeals exhausted because judgment effectively continues | Howe: bond should be released because judgment was vacated by appellate action | Motion to release was denied but stay continued on existing bond; issue largely moot after court continued stay |
| Proper accrual date for postjudgment interest | Inman: interest accrues from original May 18, 2017 judgment because damages were certain then (settlement capped settlor liability) | Howe: interest should start when court entered summary judgment on Feb 11, 2021 | Accrual from May 18, 2017 affirmed — amount owing was certain at original judgment, so interest runs from then |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill.2d 167 (forum non conveniens principles and factor balancing)
- Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812 (framework for weighing private and public forum non conveniens factors)
- Crim v. Dietrich, 2020 IL 124318 (limits on scope of remand; forfeiture of posttrial issues under section 2-1202)
- Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., 232 Ill.2d 369 (settling tortfeasor protections under Contribution Act; settlor not apportionable on verdict)
- Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., 238 Ill.2d 582 (defendant’s burden on proximate cause and limits when settling defendants exist)
- Johnson v. United Airlines, 203 Ill.2d 121 (scope of Contribution Act and right of contribution)