Badette v. Rodriguez

Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

Badette v. Rodriguez, 2014 IL App (1st) 133004

Appellate Court GERSON BADETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTANO
Caption RODRIGUEZ, Individually, and as Agent of Quality Building Supply
Company, and QUALITY BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY,
Individually, Defendants-Appellees.

District & No. First District, First Division
Docket No. 1-13-3004

Filed December 1, 2014

Held In an action arising from a vehicular accident in which plaintiff’s car
(Note: This syllabus was damaged when struck by a vehicle owned by defendant company
constitutes no part of the
and driven by one of defendant’s employees, who was also named as a
opinion of the court but
has been prepared by the
defendant, the release signed by plaintiff in an earlier action involving
Reporter of Decisions the same accident clearly released defendants from any claims based
for the convenience of on the accident, including property damage claims, notwithstanding
the reader.) plaintiff’s contentions that the parties did not intend to release
plaintiff’s property damage claims, plaintiff showed that both parties
knew of plaintiff’s claim for property damage to his vehicle prior to
the time plaintiff executed the release, and the release contained
several general releases; therefore, the trial court properly dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint for property damage pursuant to section
2-619(a)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2013-M1-12709;
Review the Hon. Cynthia Cobbs, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.
 Counsel on Law Office of Daniel E. Goodman, of Rosemont (Scott L. Spiegel, of
Appeal counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of David A. Izzo, of Chicago (Thomas C. Wolter, of
counsel), for appellees.

Panel JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Cunningham and Connors concurred in the judgment and
opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Plaintiff, Gerson Badette, filed a complaint sounding in negligence against defendants,
Albertano Rodriguez and Quality Building Supply Company, seeking recovery for damages
sustained to his car after an October 12, 2011, car accident. 1 The circuit court granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012)) based on a release signed by plaintiff
in connection with a 2012 suit plaintiff filed against defendants stemming from the same
accident. At issue is whether the circuit court erred when it dismissed plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012)) based on
the release signed by plaintiff. We hold the circuit court did not err when it dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6)
(West 2012)) because the clear and unambiguous terms of the release bar the cause of action
plaintiff raises in his complaint.

¶2 JURISDICTION
¶3 On August 19, 2013, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section
2-619(a)(6) of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012). On September 13, 2013,
plaintiff timely appealed. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme
Court Rules 301 and 303 governing appeals from final judgments entered below. Ill. S. Ct. R.
301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); R. 303 (eff. May 30, 2008).

¶4 BACKGROUND
¶5 On May 10, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint sounding in negligence against defendants in
regard to an October 12, 2011, car accident which resulted in damages to plaintiff’s car.
Plaintiff alleged defendant Albertano Rodriguez, an employee and agent of defendant Quality
Building Supply Company, drove a company owned vehicle carelessly and negligently on
Western Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Near 18th Place, the Quality Building Supply Company
vehicle driven by Rodriguez struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleged defendants had a duty
1
Defendants at all relevant times have presented a unified defense and are represented by the
same counsel. Plaintiff alleged Rodriguez, an employee of Quality Building Supply Company, drove
a company owned vehicle that negligently struck his vehicle. For the most part, we will refer to
defendants collectively to avoid confusion.

-2-
 to exercise ordinary care and caution in operating the vehicle to avoid damages to other
vehicles on the road. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligent and careless
actions, defendants’ vehicle struck plaintiff’s vehicle. In the resulting collision, plaintiff’s
vehicle “was damaged beyond repair.” Plaintiff asked for damages “in an amount less than ***
$30,000.”
¶6 On May 13, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012). Defendants alleged that
plaintiff had agreed to a release of the cause of action pursuant to a 2012 complaint plaintiff
had filed against defendants under case number 12 L 731. Defendants argued the 2012
complaint stemmed from the same accident that occurred on Western Avenue on October 12,
2011. Defendants pointed out that plaintiff had been represented by counsel in the 2012
complaint and that the clear language of the release dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims against
defendants.
¶7 As an exhibit to their motion to dismiss, defendants attached a copy of the release. The
release, which is titled “Release of All Claims” and references plaintiff as “I” and defendants
as “You,” contained the following clause:
“In consideration for the payment referenced below, I release and give up any and all
claims and rights which I may have against you. This releases all claims, including
those of which I am not aware and those not mentioned in this Release. This Release
applies to claims resulting from anything which has happened up to now. I specifically
release the following claims:
Any and all claims for monies for damages arising from personal injuries,
medical and hospital expenses, lost income, and derivative claims, or any other
rights I now have or may hereafter have by reason of or arising from an incident
which occurred on or about 10/12/2011 and which incident was the subject of an
action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, bearing Docket Number 12 L
731, which action has been or will be dismissed with prejudice.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the acceptance of the said amount is
in full accord and satisfaction and in compromise of all disputed claims and that the
payment thereof is not an admission of liability, but is made for the purpose of
terminating all disputes and litigation between these parties.”
In reference to payments plaintiff received, the release indicated that plaintiff had been paid
$16,000 and that plaintiff agreed “not to seek anything further including any other payment.”
The release also stated plaintiff was “bound by this Release” and that plaintiff “understood and
agree[d] to the terms of [the] Release.” Plaintiff signed the release on September 26, 2012.
¶8 Plaintiff responded to defendants’ motion to dismiss on July 22, 2013, arguing that the
terms of the release he signed were ambiguous. Therefore, plaintiff argued that parol evidence,
in addition to further discovery,2 was needed to determine the parties’ intent. As exhibits to its
response, plaintiff attached the following documents that pertained to the release he signed in

2
In addition to responding to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff also attempted to conduct
further discovery through a motion to strike the circuit court’s briefing schedule and hearing date for
the motion to dismiss. The circuit court denied plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff does not challenge that
order before this court. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) (“Points not argued are waived
and shall not be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing.”).

-3-
 case number 2012 L 731: plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint; plaintiff’s answers to
defendants’ interrogatories; the release; and the order dismissing the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff also attached a copy of his current complaint, i.e., case number 2013 M1 12709, and
orders filed resolving plaintiff’s attempts at conducting further discovery.
¶9 Relevant here, plaintiff’s 2012 complaint alleged defendant Albertano Rodriguez drove a
Quality Building Supply Company vehicle into plaintiff’s lane and collided with plaintiff’s
vehicle. The resulting “collision *** caused Plaintiff[’s] *** vehicle to be pushed off of the
street and into a pole.” Plaintiff’s amended complaint contained similar allegations, including
that defendants’ vehicle struck plaintiff’s vehicle. The interrogatories, dated July 13, 2012,
included a question from defendants asking whether “any photographs [were] taken of the
scene of the occurrence.” Plaintiff responded that his “counsel is in possession of 11
photographs depicting the damage done to [his] vehicle as a result of the motor vehicle
collision.”
¶ 10 Plaintiff argued that his complaint and amended complaint in case number 2012 L 731 only
referred to his physical injuries, not damages to his property. Plaintiff also pointed out that
defendants’ interrogatories did not seek any information as to any property damage plaintiff
sustained in the incident or ask any questions regarding his vehicle. In addition to arguing that
the terms of the release were ambiguous, plaintiff also argued that the release failed to make
any reference to plaintiff’s property damage. Accordingly, plaintiff argued that his intent in
signing the release, and the intent of the parties, was to release defendants from his bodily
injury claims only, not any claims for damages to his vehicle.
¶ 11 It appears from the record that defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s response to their
motion to dismiss. The actual reply, however, is not part of the record.3
¶ 12 On August 19, 2013, the circuit court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012).
The circuit court reasoned that the language of the release “is clear and unambiguous and ***
dispositive o[f] this issue.” In its written order, the circuit court similarly stated that “[t]he
dismissal is based on the unambiguous language of the release.” On September 13, 2013,
plaintiff filed his notice of appeal.

¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 Before this court, plaintiff argues that the terms of the release are ambiguous because the
release speaks in general terms and then subsequently itemizes specific types of claims. Due to
this alleged ambiguity, plaintiff contends that parol evidence is necessary to determine the
parties’ intent in agreeing to the release. Plaintiff argues that the parol evidence in this case
shows that the parties intended the release to only apply to his bodily injuries, not to damage to
his vehicle.
¶ 15 Defendants argue that the release must be enforced as written because its terms are clear,
concise, and explicit. Defendants also point out that plaintiff was represented by counsel when
he signed the release and that plaintiff’s brief before this court does not contain any allegations
that the release had been procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or illegality. Furthermore,
3
Defendants’ notice of filing of its reply is included in the record but the actual reply is not in the
record. We remind plaintiff that “[a]ny doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record
will be resolved against the appellant.” Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392 (1984).

-4-
 defendants argue that plaintiff’s misunderstanding of the meaning of the release is a unilateral
mistake that does not void the release.
¶ 16 A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code admits the legal sufficiency of a
claim but asserts affirmative matter that defeats the claim. Doe v. Diocese of Dallas, 234 Ill. 2d
393, 396 (2009). Sections 2-619(a)(1) through (a)(9) provide a list of such affirmative matter.
735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1)-(9) (West 2012). Relevant here, section 2-619(a)(6) allows for the
involuntary dismissal of a claim when “the claim set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been
released.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012). All facts in the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits found in the record may be considered upon review. Doe, 234 Ill. 2d at 396.
Pleadings and supporting documents must be interpreted by the court in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343, 352
(2008). If a defendant satisfies its initial burden of presenting affirmative matter defeating a
plaintiff’s complaint, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the asserted defense is
unfounded or leaves unresolved issues of material fact as to an essential element. Kedzie &
103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 116 (1993). We review a motion to
dismiss brought pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code de novo. Czarobski v. Lata, 227 Ill. 2d
364, 369 (2008).
¶ 17 When reviewing a release, we apply contract law principles because a release is a contract.
Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Whitlock, 144 Ill. 2d 440, 447 (1991). Our primary objective,
therefore, is to give effect to the parties’ intent. Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208, 232
(2007). “A court must initially look to the language of a contract alone, as the language, given
its plain and ordinary meaning, is the best indication of the parties’ intent.” Id. at 233. We will
construe the whole contract at issue, and we will not determine the intent of the parties from
isolated provisions standing alone. Id. Clear and explicit written agreements that are
unambiguous will be enforced as written without the assistance of extrinsic or parol evidence.
Rakowski v. Lucente, 104 Ill. 2d 317, 323 (1984). We will only resort to extrinsic evidence to
determine the parties’ intent where a contract is susceptible to more than one meaning.
Gallagher, 226 Ill. 2d at 233. A self-induced or unilateral mistake is not a valid reason to set
aside an unambiguous release. Rakowski, 104 Ill. 2d at 324.
¶ 18 After reviewing the release, we hold its terms clearly release defendants of any claim
arising from the October 12, 2011, car accident involving plaintiff and defendants. After listing
personal injury, medical expenses, lost income, and derivative claims, the release explicitly
states “I specifically release the following claim[]: *** any other rights I now have or may
hereafter have by reason of or arising from an incident which occurred on or about [October
12,] 2011.” We cannot say that the release can be interpreted to mean anything other than the
release of all of plaintiff’s claims against defendant arising from the October 12, 2011, car
accident. An unambiguous release will be applied as written without the assistance of parol or
extrinsic evidence. Rakowski, 104 Ill. 2d at 323 (“Where a written agreement is clear and
explicit, a court must enforce the agreement as written.”); Gallagher, 226 Ill. 2d at 233 (“If the
language of the contract is susceptible to more than one meaning, it is ambiguous.”).
Accordingly, we hold the release plaintiff agreed to here is clear and explicit and
unambiguously releases all claims he may have against defendants arising from the October
12, 2011, car accident. Therefore, we will enforce the terms of the release as written, without
looking to any extrinsic evidence.

-5-
¶ 19 Applying the terms of the release to plaintiff’s complaint in this case shows that the circuit
court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code. 735
ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012). Plaintiff’s complaint sought damages from defendants
because plaintiff’s vehicle “was damaged beyond repair” in the collision that occurred with
defendants’ vehicle on October 12, 2011. Plaintiff alleged that the damages to his vehicle were
proximately caused by defendants’ alleged negligence. The clear terms of the release,
however, release all of plaintiff’s claims arising from the October 12, 2011, incident with
defendants. Accordingly, we hold the circuit court did not err when it dismissed plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(6) (West 2012))
based on the unambiguous language of the release.
¶ 20 Plaintiff argues before this court that the specific language of the release controls over the
general provisions of the release. Even if we consider the release a general release, as plaintiff
urges us to do, his argument fails because it is well established that a general release will be
given effect where the parties knew of an additional claim at the time of the signing of the
release. Whitlock, 144 Ill. 2d at 447. Our supreme court has explained:
“Where the releasing party was unaware of other claims, Illinois case law has
restricted general releases to the specific claims contained in the release agreement.
[Citation.] However, where both parties were aware of an additional claim at the time
of signing the release, courts have given effect to the general release language of the
agreement to release that claim as well.” Id.
Plaintiff showed, ultimately to his detriment, that both parties knew of an additional claim, i.e.,
damage to his vehicle, when he presented his answers to defendants’ interrogatories in
response to defendants’ motion to dismiss. In his answers to defendants’ interrogatories, which
predate the release he later signed, plaintiff admitted that his counsel possessed “11
photographs depicting the damage done to [his] vehicle as a result of the motor vehicle
collision.” Although plaintiff contends the parties did not intend the release to apply to his
property damage claims, his pleadings in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss show that
the parties had knowledge that plaintiff’s vehicle sustained damage. Therefore, a general
release would apply to plaintiff’s property damage claim because both parties knew of the
damage to his vehicle. It is undisputed that the release contains several provisions that are
general releases, including: “I release and give up any and all claims and rights which I may
have against you”; “This releases all claims, including those of which I am not aware and those
not mentioned in this Release”; and “This release applies to claims resulting from anything
which has happened up to now.” Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint also could be properly
dismissed pursuant to section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code based on the various general provisions
contained in the release due to the parties’ knowledge of an additional claim, i.e., the property
damage to plaintiff’s car, at the time of the signing of the release.

¶ 21 CONCLUSION
¶ 22 The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

¶ 23 Affirmed.

-6-