ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 100
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 100/5 (2026)

Enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 100/5) (from Ch. 70, par. 305)
    (Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 5. Enforcement. Other than in actions for healing art malpractice, a cause of action for contribution among joint tortfeasors is not required to be asserted during the pendency of litigation brought by a claimant and may be asserted by a separate action before or after payment of a settlement or judgment in favor of the claimant, or may be asserted by counterclaim or by third-party complaint in a pending action.
    This amendatory Act of 1995 applies to causes of action filed on or after its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
 
    (Text of Section WITHOUT the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 5. Enforcement. A cause of action for contribution among joint tortfeasors may be asserted by a separate action before or after payment, by counterclaim or by third-party complaint in a pending action.
(Source: P.A. 81-601.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Harshman v. DePhillips, 844 N.E.2d 941 (Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harshman v. DePhillips, 844 N.E.2d 941 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 23× “We hold plaintiffs= contribution claim was not Aasserted *** by third-party complaint in a pending action@ within the meaning of section 5 of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (Contribution Act) (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 2000)) and is therefore not permitted by Illinois law.”
McNamee v. Federated Equip. & Supply Co., Inc., 692 N.E.2d 1157 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 2× “The complaint contains survival and wrongful-death counts, alleging negligence and product liability. Federated then brought a third-party contribution action against the City, pursuant to the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (Contribution Act) (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 1996)).”
Illinois State Toll High. Auth. v. Amoco Oil Co., 783 N.E.2d 658 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 740 ILCS 100/5 (West 2000). Contrary to Mobil’s assertion that contribution is appropriate only where the party seeking contribution for a sum has been sued for that sum by another party, the plain thrust of the disjunctive in this section is that contribution is entirely…”
Ramsey v. Morrison, 676 N.E.2d 1304 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 2× “Morrison's third-party action sought contribution from the employer under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/0.”
Barragan v. Casco Design Corp., 837 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 2005). “2d 939 (1984); 740 ILCS 100/5 (West 2002).”
Caballero v. Rockford Punch Press & Mfg. Co., 614 N.E.2d 362 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “After an underlying direct action is pending, section 5 of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 1992)) rather than section 13—204 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to an action for contribution.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Reproductive Genetics Inst., 2018 IL App (1st) 170923 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3× “On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly dismissed its complaint because neither the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (Contribution Act) (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 2016)) nor case law prohibits its contribution claim.”
In Re Ulz, 401 B.R. 321 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009). “It is true that section 5 of the Act, 740 ILCS 100/5 (2006), would prevent Conrad from seeking contribution from C & R now because he failed to do so in the underlying action.”
Bradley v. Sandoz Nutrition Corp., 653 N.E.2d 858 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “” Sandoz first contends that the medical malpractice statute is not applicable to its third-party complaint and that its complaint was timely pursuant to section 5 of the Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 1992)) and the interpretation of the statutory language in Laue v.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Reproductive Genetics Inst., 2018 IL App (1st) 170923 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3× “On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly dismissed its complaint because neither the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (Contribution Act) ( 740 ILCS 100/5 (West 2016) ) nor case law prohibits its contribution claim.”
Cholipski v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 132842 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Laue Decision ¶ 46 In addition, defendants claim that the trial court abused its discretion because the stay violates the principles underlying section 5 of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 2012)), as articulated by our supreme court in Laue v.”
Cincinnati Ins. v. Baur's Opera House, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 593 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “However, once Baur’s received notice of Stearnes’ state lawsuit in April 1993, its contribution rights accrued pursuant to section 5 of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (Act) (740 ILCS 100/5 (West 1992)). See Hayes v.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.