CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) – A mere $50,000 settlement from the employer and uncle of a 21-year-old man who died while refurbishing a bathtub raises some red flags, an Illinois court has ruled.
The First District of the Appellate Court ruled Dec. 3 that the trial judge handling the case wrongly ruled the settlement was the result of good faith negotiations. Instead, the appeals court wants Cook County Circuit Court Judge Melissa Durkin to give other companies involved in the matter access to more “relevant discovery” for any future settlements.
“The settling parties share a close personal relationship, which included decedent working for his uncle at the time of his death,” Justice Robert Gordon wrote.
“Hartley’s potential liability for decedent’s death is considerable, where he was found to have violated numerous safety regulations, which he did not challenge. Despite this potential liability, plaintiff chose not to sue Hartley directly and the settlement was for a modest amount—$50,000—even though Hartley maintained an insurance policy that provided $1 million per occurrence in coverage.”
Kevin Hartley died in 2017 after working on a bathtub at a Nashville, Tenn., apartment complex. Though he was wearing a respirator mask, fumes from a paint stripper that contained methylene chloride made by Samax Enterprises and sold by NAPCO caused him to lose consciousness and die the next day, his mother alleges.
Wendy Hartley filed a products liability and negligence lawsuit against Samax and NAPCO but not against her former brother-in-law Tony Hartley, for whom Kevin was working. But Samax and NAPCO filed third-party complaints against Tony’s business in an effort to apportion fault against it.
Hartley Painting and Wendy’s $50,000 settlement attempted to put an end to any liability on the company’s part. Samax and NAPCO questioned it, but Judge Durkin found it was reached in good faith.
In reversing, the appeals court shared some of the concerns of Samax and NAPCO and struck down the settlement.
It noted that adding the dozen violations that Hartley Painting was found to have committed to an insurance policy with a limit of $1 million did not equal a “modest” $50,000 release of liability.
“There is no explanation for the low amount of the settlement, other than Hartley’s representation that insurance coverage is not guaranteed,” Justice Gordon wrote.
“Hartley does have defenses to his liability, especially if decedent is found to have been an independent contractor, but plaintiff did not raise these defenses in explaining why she did not sue Hartley directly, so there is no suggestion that these defenses had any impact in determining the amount of the settlement.”