The Walsh Group, LTD. v. Geans
2013 IL App (1st) 122674
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- On Sept. 24, 2006 Kesha A. Geans, driving with a .229 BAC, lost control, struck a concrete jersey barrier, crossed the center line, and collided with the Mirandas’ car; 12‑year‑old Marco suffered catastrophic brain injuries.
- Geans pled guilty to a felony DUI; her insurer, Universal, paid Geans’ $20,000 policy limit and the plaintiff (Marco’s father/next friend) executed a broad release of Geans and Universal in Dec. 2008.
- Plaintiff later sued Walsh (the contractor that placed the barrier) alleging negligent placement; Walsh third‑partied Geans for contribution under the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act.
- Geans moved for involuntary dismissal and a judicial finding that the presuit $20,000 settlement was made in good faith under the Act; limited discovery disclosed Geans’ lack of assets, unemployment, and chronic medical issues.
- The trial court found no evidence of collusion, fraud, or wrongful conduct and concluded the settlement was in good faith given the totality of circumstances; it granted dismissal. Walsh appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miranda) | Defendant's Argument (Walsh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $20,000 presuit settlement with Geans was made in "good faith" under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act | The settlement extinguishes contribution liability if made in good faith; court should uphold where no collusion and policy limits were paid | The court failed to weigh the settlement amount against Geans’ likely liability and probability of recovery; the settlement forces Walsh to absorb disproportionate share of damages | The appellate court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; no evidence of collusion/fraud and policy limit was paid so settlement was in good faith |
| Whether the trial court must focus on disparity between settlement amount and potential damages | Settlement advantage to plaintiff alone does not indicate bad faith; amount must be viewed in context of probability of recovery and settlor’s assets | Disparity is critical because Geans’ $20,000 is far below her fair share of liability, prejudicing Walsh by removing Geans from apportionment | Court: disparity alone is not dispositive; amount considered with defenses, recovery probability, and settlor’s assets — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Ready decision (excluding settling defendant from verdict form) unfairly increases nonsettling defendant liability | Not raised as determinative to good‑faith inquiry; Act’s policies remain controlling | Ready prevents naming settling defendant on verdict form and may prejudice Walsh by skewing apportionment | Court declined to address Ready’s broader impact here and held Ready does not alter good‑faith analysis; not a basis to overturn good‑faith finding |
| Whether approving the settlement rewards or excuses egregious conduct (e.g., drunk driving) | Public policies behind contribution encourage settlements; criminal fault is not a factor in the Act’s good‑faith test | Allowing a drunk driver to be released for policy limits effectively rewards wrongdoing and is inequitable | Court: Criminal culpability is not a policy informing the Act’s good‑faith determination; no evidence of wrongful conduct in settlement negotiations |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United Airlines, 203 Ill. 2d 121 (Ill. 2003) (defines good‑faith framework under the Illinois Contribution Act and assigns burdens of proof)
- Ready v. United/Goedecke Servs., Inc., 232 Ill. 2d 369 (Ill. 2008) (holding a settling defendant is not a "defendant sued by the plaintiff" for jury apportionment under §2‑1117)
- Lard v. AM/FM Ohio, Inc., 387 Ill. App. 3d 915 (Ill. App. 2009) (affirming good‑faith finding where insurance limits were sole recoverable funds and no collusion existed)
- Pecoraro v. Balkonis, 383 Ill. App. 3d 1028 (Ill. App. 2008) (good‑faith finding affirmed despite low settlement where settlor had little/no assets)
- Yoder v. Ferguson, 381 Ill. App. 3d 353 (Ill. App. 2008) (amount paid must be viewed relative to probability of recovery and potential liability)
- Cellini v. Village of Gurnee, 403 Ill. App. 3d 26 (Ill. App. 2010) (Ready does not change the good‑faith factors or the trial court’s scrutiny in contribution‑act determinations)