The Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in Antonicelli v. Rodriguez instructs that timing is sometimes key when it comes to settling a personal injury lawsuit.  Antonicelli involved the case of a woman who suffered severe and permanent injuries when her vehicle collided with a car driven by a man under the influence of cocaine. 

The collision occurred as the intoxicated man made a U-turn through the median on Interstate 88.  After the first collision, a trucker, unable to stop his semi, also collided with the woman’s car.

The intoxicated driver pled guilty to aggravated driving under the influence and was sentenced to seven years in prison.  He denied any memory of the collision due to severe brain injuries suffered in the accident.

The woman filed a lawsuit against the intoxicated driver, the trucker, and the trucking company.  However, the only asset available to satisfy the intoxicated driver’s liability to the woman was a $20,000 personal injury liability auto insurance policy.  It is easy to imagine that the woman sought a seven-figure recovery against the intoxicated driver, the trucker and the trucking company.

Before trial, the woman agreed to settle her claims against the intoxicated driver for $20,000 – the full amount of the coverage limit available under his insurance policy.  However, the intoxicated driver’s payment, or more accurately, his insurance company’s payment, of the $20,000 was contingent upon the trial court finding that the settlement was entered in “good faith.”  The intoxicated driver filed a motion requesting that the court declare the settlement entered in good faith.

The trucker and the trucking company were concerned that a good faith finding by the judge would prevent the jury from considering the intoxicated driver’s proportinal fault for the accident if the case ultimately went before a jury.  Their concern was well founded.  Illinois courts have routinely prevented juries making a finding of the relative fault of defendants who settle out of a lawsuit before trial. Moreover, in Illinois, a settling defendant who obtains a good faith finding is insulated from future claims brought by other people who may also be partly to blame for a plaintiff’s injuries, but to a lesser degree than the settling defendant. Without a good faith finding as to a settling defendant’s agreement with the plaintiff, these less culpable people – like the trucker and the trucking company – have the right to pursue the settling defendant for repayment of amounts they paid to satisfy the settling defendant’s portion of the overall obligation.

Predictably, the trucker and the trucking company opposed the intoxicated driver’s motion for a good faith finding.  They argued that the woman’s settlement with the intoxicated driver was not entered in good faith because the intoxicated driver bore most, if not all, of the responsibility for the accident and his settlement payment of $20,000 represented only a tiny fraction of what the woman would be entitled to if she prevailed in the lawsuit.

The judge in the trial court ruled against the trucker and the trucking company, finding that the injured woman’s settlement with the intoxicated driver was entered in good faith.  This finding had the effect of wiping out any future claims by the trucker and trucking company against the intoxicated driver for repayment of any amounts they might pay to the woman to satisfy the intoxicated driver’s obligations.  But most importantly to the trucker and the trucking company, the verdict form to be filled out by the jury would ask the jury to assign a percentage of blame only to the trucker and the trucking company, and not the intoxicated driver.

The trucker and the trucking company appealed this result, ultimately reaching the Illinois Supreme Court.  A divided Supreme Court upheld the finding that the settlement was entered in good faith, appearing to favor the public policy of encouragment of the settlement of lawsuits over the policy of equitable apportionment of damages among negligent parties.  Because the trucker and the trucking company did not introduce evidence that the injured woman and the intoxicated driver engaged in wrongful conduct, collusion, or fraud in arriving at the settlement, the Supreme Court concluded that the good faith finding could not be disturbed on appeal.