X hits on this document

85 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 23

1-09-2163

2d at 135, 784 N.E.2d at 821; Dubina, 197 Ill. 2d at 191-92, 756 N.E.2d at 840.

Here, in response to the U-Haul entities’ opposition to Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-

faith finding, Buffalo Grove submitted to the circuit court a copy of the “full and final release and

satisfaction agreement,” which detailed the terms to which Buffalo Grove and Cellini agreed. Thus,

we find that Buffalo Grove sufficiently made a preliminary showing of good faith, and the burden

of proof shifted to the U-Haul entities to show an absence of good faith by a preponderance of the

evidence. See Johnson, 203 Ill. 2d at 132, 784 N.E.2d at 820 (a settling party must show the

existence of alegallyvalid settlement agreement);see generallySnoddy v. Teepak, Inc., 198 Ill. App.

3d 966, 969, 556 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1990) (a preliminary showing of good faith was evidenced by the

settling parties’ “release” and the circuit court properly presumed that the settlement was valid).

Under the facts and the record before us, we find that the U-Haul entities failed to

demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, any showing of bad faith by the settling parties.

In a response brief opposing Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-faith finding, the U-Haul entities

argued that the “[p]laintiffs will almost certainly seek between $10-$20 million in damages” at trial,

and thus, Buffalo Grove’s settlement with Cellini, the Forshalls and Diamond would be

“fundamentally unfair” to the U-Haul entities because they would be “paying in excess of their pro

rata share of fault, if any.” At the July 23, 2009 hearing on the motion for a good-faith finding, the

U-Haul entities argued that in light of our supreme court’s decision in Ready v. United/Goedecke

Services, Inc., which held that a settling tortfeasor was not a “defendant” considered in apportioning

fault and would not be listed on the verdict form, a nonsettling defendant such as the U-Haul entities

would be “left holding the bag.” See Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., 232 Ill. 2d 369, 905

16

Document info
Document views85
Page views88
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 17:26:22 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs495
Words6888

Comments