X hits on this document





22 / 23


subcontractor, as the nonsettling defendant, was not allowed to present any evidence at trial

regarding the conduct of the settling defendants. Ready, 232 Ill. 2d at 373, 905 N.E.2d at 728. The

circuit court denied the subcontractor’s motion to list the settled defendants on the verdict form “so

that if the jury found [the subcontractor] at fault, it could consider whether to allocate some portion

of the fault not only to [the decedent], but also to [the] employer and the general contractor.” Ready,

232 Ill. 2d at 373, 905 N.E.2d at 728. The trial then proceeded with the subcontractor as the sole

defendant, and the jury found the subcontractor liable for $14.23 million in damages. Ready, 232

Ill. 2d at 373, 905 N.E.2d at 728. After “offsets for [the decedent’s] comparative negligence (35%)

and the settlement amounts paid by [the general contractor] and [the employer],” the subcontractor

was held liable in the amount of $8.137 million. Ready, 232 Ill. 2d at 373, 905 N.E.2d at 728. In

rejecting the subcontractor’s argument that “the exclusion of settling defendants from the

apportionment of fault results in unfairness,” our supreme court noted that the task of balancing the

competing public policies of the Act was “better left to the legislature,” and held that a settling

defendant should not be named on the jury verdict form for the appropriation of fault. Ready, 232

Ill. 2d at 383, 905 N.E.2d at 733-34; see 735 ILCS 5/2-1117 (West 2006).

We find the U-Haul entities’ argument regarding the interpretation of Ready to be

unpersuasive. Nowhere in Ready does our supreme court state that, in light of its holding, courts

must engage in a heightened level of scrutiny of settlement agreements in making a good-faith

determination. We also decline to address the argument raised by the U-Haul entities regarding

whether the decision in Ready “actually discourages the fair settlement of lawsuits.” (Emphasis in

original.) That argument raises an issue which is not before us in the instant appeal. The issue on


Document info
Document views55
Page views58
Page last viewedSun Oct 23 03:11:17 UTC 2016