US Home Corporation v. George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc.

624 F. Supp. 528, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30796
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedJanuary 6, 1986
Docket82 C 7775
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 624 F. Supp. 528 (US Home Corporation v. George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
US Home Corporation v. George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 528, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30796 (N.D. Ill. 1986).

Opinion

*529 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, District Judge.

On December 21, 1984 this Court issued its opinion (“Opinion I,” 601 F.Supp. 84, 85-87 (N.D.Ill.1984)) and on September 17, 1985 it issued a further opinion (“Opinion II, ” 617 F.Supp. 893, 896-98 & n. 7 (N.D.Ill. 1985)), each dealing in part with the current status of the implied indemnity doctrine in Illinois, particularly in light of the Illinois Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 70, ¶¶ 301-305. This brief supplemental opinion is issued sua sponte in light of last month’s decision of the Illinois Appellate Court for the First Appellate District in Heinrich v. Peabody International Corp., 139 Ill.App.3d 289, 93 Ill. Dec. 544, 486 N.E.2d 1379, (1st Dist. 1985).

When this Court wrote Opinions I and II, it rejected implied indemnity in the context of this case, though it recognized that then-existing Illinois Appellate Court decisions might find the doctrine still viable under special circumstances not present here. Heinrich, on remand from the Illinois Supreme Court (99 Ill.2d 344, 76 Ill.Dec. 800, 459 N.E.2d 935 (1984)), has now gone all the way: It spurns implied indemnity in its entirety (139 Ill.App.3d 289, 93 Ill.Dec. 544, 486 N.E.2d 1379):

We consider that the historical relationship between indemnity and contribution, the policies supporting the adoption of contribution by our supreme court, the legislature’s intent in passing the Contribution Act evidenced by what was said and what was not said, the broad statutory scheme and the specific language of the Act setting forth the general application of contribution (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 70, par. 302(a)), all weigh in favor of a finding that implied indemnity has been abolished.

Under this Court’s view of the workings of Erie v. Tompkins (see, e.g., Abbott Laboratories v. Granite State Insurance Co., 573 F.Supp. 193, 196-200 (N.D.Ill.1983)), where there is a division of authority among Illinois Appellate Districts (and there is), Heinrich controls this case. Accordingly the Opinion’s ruling rejecting implied indemnity here is reconfirmed unconditionally.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

National Can Co. v. Vinylex Corp.
687 F. Supp. 375 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
De Anda v. Midland-Ross Corp.
644 F. Supp. 263 (N.D. Illinois, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
624 F. Supp. 528, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-home-corporation-v-george-w-kennedy-construction-company-inc-ilnd-1986.