the first element, duty, the Court noted the absence of Illinois and Seventh Circuit case law on the subject, and that federal district courts had split as to the existence of a duty. The Court did not rule on the question of duty, but assumed that a duty arose for the purpose of analyzing the elements of breach and causation. The Court ruled that defendant did not breach its duty to timely, adequately, or accurately inform plaintiff of its potential exposure, or its duty to engage in reasonable settlement negotiations. As to the final element, the Court held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant proximately caused plaintiff's injury.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), plaintiff requests the Court to amend its March 25 Memorandum and Order and judgment. In determining a Rule 52(b) motion, the Court should correct a judgment entered erroneously. Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986). However, a Rule 52(b) motion seeking "to relitigate old issues . . . or to secure a rehearing on the merits" is inappropriate. Id. Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to discuss, consider and determine certain material facts presented in the evidence which warrant amendment of the judgment. Plaintiff also asserts that the Court erred in failing to specifically find a duty, a breach of duty, and causation. Plaintiff has submitted fourteen pages of additional proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rather than address each point raised, the Court will generally discuss the topics raised in plaintiff's motion.
First, the Court reaffirms its prior ruling on the issue of duty. Controlling case law provides no clear guidance, but nevertheless, the Court assumed that defendant did owe a duty to plaintiff. Plaintiff has proposed numerous factual findings related to the breach of a duty, several of which relate to the failure to disclose the results of an October 16, 1987 test conducted on Howell's motor, and to the alleged failure to notify plaintiff of the entirety of Mike Ryan's deposition testimony. The Court reviewed this evidence before issuing its findings of fact, and notes the previous finding that defendant did not notify plaintiff of the October 1987 product test. (Doc. #150, P 29). The Court reaffirms its previous conclusions that defendant did not breach its duty to timely, adequately, or accurately inform plaintiff of its potential exposure, and that defendant did not breach its duty to engage in reasonable settlement negotiations. See Kavanaugh v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co., 35 Ill. App. 3d 350, 342 N.E.2d 116, 121 (Ill. App. 1975).
Plaintiff has also proposed findings of fact which, if adopted, would establish causation. Plaintiff generally asserts that the Heiples would have settled for $ 1,000,000 because: (a) their attorney, Stephen Tillery, told plaintiff's attorney Robert Wilson that he would have accepted a $ 1,000,000 settlement; and (b) Heiple stated that Tillery told him he would "put $ 1,000,000 in his pocket." Tillery testified at trial that he would not have settled for less than $ 2,000,000, and Heiple's deposition testimony supports Tillery's testimony. The Court found Tillery's testimony credible. The March 25 Order properly found that plaintiff failed to establish that the Heiples would have settled for less than $ 2,000,000, and thus failed to establish causation. See Ranger, 714 F. Supp. at 962; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Continental Ill. Corp., 673 F. Supp. 267, 273 (N.D. Ill. 1987). The Court finds that plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by the evidence before the Court, and the Court reaffirms its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the above stated reasons, plaintiff is not entitled to an amendment of the March 25 Memorandum and Order, or Judgment pursuant to Rule 52(b), or to a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to amend the March 25, 1994 Memorandum and Order, and Judgment, or in the alternative, for a new trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 2 May 1994
William D. Stiehl
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.