Ford, the Estate says it is clear that the release extinguished the liability of the driver, Henry. In the instant case, the lack of a release discharging Henry (or his estate) from liability as a joint tortfeasor is not fatal to a finding of good faith. “The Contribution Act does not set forth a specific form that a release must take and does not even require the release to be in writing.” Lard v. AM/FM Ohio, Inc., 387 Ill.App.3d 915, 327 Ill.Dec. 273, 901 N.E.2d 1006, 1016 (2009). Given the per person limit for bodily injury coverage on the Hartford policy, Evelyn’s release of Hartford’s liability for uninsured motorist coverage in exchange for the full policy limits achieved the same result as a release of Henry from tort liability. See Lard, 327 Ill.Dec. 273, 901 N.E.2d at 1016 (<HOLDING>). The payment by Hartford to Evelyn was in
holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement holding that a settlement agreement in which the parties failed to agree upon the terms of a release was unenforceable holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement holding in a mass tort situation with over ninety plaintiffs that plaintiffs acceptance of the settlement agreement amounted to an implied release satisfying the contribution acts release requirement holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release