McMackin v. Weberpal Roofing, Inc.
959 N.E.2d 186
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Underlying plaintiffs Scott and Tamara McMackin sued Weberpal Roofing for negligence arising from Scott's 2006 industrial accident.
- Weberpal filed a third-party complaint against McMackin Construction seeking contribution.
- McMackin Construction asserted its workers' compensation lien could limit its liability and that waiving the lien relieved it of contribution liability.
- Scott and McMackin Construction executed a release in 2009 whereby Scott released Weberpal and McMackin Construction in exchange for $450,000, while preserving workers' compensation claims.
- Weberpal argued the release did not extinguish McMackin Construction's contribution liability or the right to seek contribution; McMackin argued the lien waiver extinguished Weberpal's contribution claim and moved to dismiss.
- The trial court granted McMackin Construction's motion to dismiss Weberpal's contribution claim; Weberpal appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McMackin Construction's waiver of its workers' compensation lien extinguished Weberpal's contribution claim. | Weberpal contends waiver extinguishes contribution rights. | McMackin asserts waiver eliminates Weberpal's contribution liability. | Waiver extinguishes Weberpal's contribution claim. |
| Whether the release was made in good faith and supports dismissal for good faith. | Weberpal argues lack of good faith due to potential double recovery. | McMackin contends release was made in arm's-length, good faith. | Trial court properly found good faith. |
| Whether Weberpal is entitled to a setoff or credit due to the lien waiver. | Weberpal seeks setoff to prevent double recovery. | Setoff not applicable; double recovery doctrine inapplicable; no relief requested from Scott. | Setoff not available; double recovery does not apply. |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction timing affected Weberpal's appeal. | Weberpal argues timely postjudgment appeal rules support jurisdiction. | McMackin contends premature appeal; rule 303(a)(2) governs timing. | Jurisdiction proper under Rule 303(a)(2); timely appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill.2d 380 (Ill. 1992) (waiver of lien can extinguish contribution liability)
- Hall v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 122 Ill.2d 448 (Ill. 1988) (release permits contribution despite employer's WC liability; distinguishable here)
- Kim v. Alvey, Inc., 322 Ill.App.3d 657 (Ill. App. 2001) (double recovery doctrine; settlement lacks setoff against third party)
- Branum v. Slezak Construction Co., 289 Ill.App.3d 948 (Ill. App. 1997) (setoff mechanics; pre-trial settlement context)
- Funes v. B & B Equipment, Inc., 282 Ill.App.3d 272 (Ill. App. 1996) (good faith assessment; settlement may be upheld absent collusion)