Babich v. River Oaks Toyota
| Decision Date | 08 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-05-3728.,1-05-3728. |
| Citation | 879 N.E.2d 420,377 Ill.App.3d 425 |
| Parties | Matthew BABICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIVER OAKS TOYOTA and Flair Design, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees (River Oaks Toyota, Defendant-Appellee). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Plaintiff, Matthew Babich, filed a two-count complaint (a products liability count and a negligent spoliation count) against the defendants, Flair Design, Ltd. (Flair Design) and River Oaks Toyota (Toyota). After Babich settled with Flair Design, Toyota filed a motion for summary judgment and requested that the court enter a judgment for it and against Babich. The trial court granted the motion after finding that the limitations period for the products liability action had expired. In this appeal, we are presented with the following issue for review: whether the expiration of the limitations period for Babich's products liability action prevented Babich from prosecuting his negligent spoliation action. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Babich filed his initial complaint on July 12, 2002. In count I, the products liability action, Babich alleged that he was injured on July 16, 2001, by a chair manufactured by Flair Design and purchased by Toyota. In count II, the negligent spoliation action, Babich alleged that Toyota disposed of the chair that caused the injury in his products liability action.
Toyota filed a motion for summary judgment and supported the motion with depositions. Anthony Cassello, the owner of Toyota, testified during his deposition that new chairs had not been purchased for Toyota since 1987 and that chairs brought to River Oaks Toyota from his Michigan City dealership were purchased no later then 1990. Joe Cassello, Toyota's used car manager, testified during his deposition that on the night of Babich's accident, he observed the broken chair, which was identical to two others in Cassello's workspace, and that all three chairs were at Toyota when he began working there in 1990. Joe Cassello also testified that these chairs were the only three chairs of this make and model in the Toyota showroom. Ellen Cassello, who had worked for Toyota since 1987, testified during her deposition that she did not recall new furniture being purchased while working at Toyota.
James Lebo, Toyota's general manager, testified during his deposition that new furniture was purchased in 1987 when Toyota relocated to its location in Calumet City, Illinois. Lebo also testified that he was unaware of any other Toyota employee who spoke with representatives from the West Bend Insurance Company, Toyota's insurance carrier, about Babich's accident. According to Lebo, Lisa Albrecht requested that he complete an accident report form. Finally, Lebo testified that he completed Babich's accident report and submitted it to West Bend.
Babich filed Albrecht's deposition in support of his response to the motion for summary judgment. Albrecht testified during her deposition that she was a senior claims representative for West Bend Insurance Company in October 2001 when she was assigned Babich's worker's compensation claim. Albrecht testified that she was assigned the claim when she received the report that Lebo sent to West Bend. Albrecht testified that after speaking with Babich's attorney, she sent a letter on November 15, 2001, to Lebo requesting information about the collapsed chair. Albrecht testified that she also sent a copy of her November 15, 2001, letter to Vogt. Albrecht testified that in response to her November 15, 2001, letter, she received handwritten answers to her questions that were written on a copy of her November 15, 2001, letter, but there was no signature on the response document identifying the person who answered her questions. Finally, Albrecht testified that the response indicated that the chair was approximately eight years old.
On June 28, 2005, Toyota moved for summary judgment. Toyota argued that Babich's spoliation claim against Toyota could not proceed because the applicable limitations period had expired and barred Babich's strict products liability claim against Flair Design. The trial court granted Toyota's motion, finding that there were no material issues of fact in dispute because the uncontradicted evidence established that the limitations period expired and barred Babich's products liability claim against the manufacturer, Flair Design. The trial court also found that since Babich could not proceed with his products liability claim against the manufacturer, his negligent spoliation claim against Toyota must also fail because, without a pending products liability action, there was no pending products liability action in which the chair could be introduced as evidence.
In this case, the trial court granted Toyota's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2002). The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill.2d 307, 315, 290 Ill.Dec. 218, 821 N.E.2d 269 (2004).
Babich filed a products liability action and a negligent spoliation action and alleged that he was injured when he fell from a defective chair. Toyota maintains that the statute of limitations expired on Babich's product liability action. The limitations period for a products or strict liability action is codified in section 13-213(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). 735 ILCS 5/13-213(b) (West 2002). Section 13-213(b) provides:
(b) Subject to the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) no product liability action based on any theory or doctrine shall be commenced except within the applicable limitations period and, in any event, within 12 years from the date of first sale, lease or delivery of possession by a seller or 10 years from the date of first sale, lease or delivery of possession to its initial user, consumer, or other non-seller, whichever period expires earlier, of any product unit that is claimed to have injured or damaged the plaintiff, unless the defendant expressly has warranted or promised the product for a longer period and the action is brought within that period. 735 ILCS 5/13-213(b) (West 2002).
First, section 13-213(b) provides that a products liability action must be commenced within 12 years from the date of the first sale, lease or delivery of possession by a seller. Second, section 13-213(b) also provides that a products action must be commenced within 10 years from the first sale, lease or delivery to the initial user, consumer or other nonseller. 735 ILCS 5/13-213(b) (West 2005). Finally, section 13-213(b) provides that because there is both a 10- and a 12-year limitations period, the court should apply whichever limitations period expires earlier. 735 ILCS 5/13-213(b) (West 2002); Garza v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., 172 Ill.2d 373, 379-80, 217 Ill.Dec. 260, 666 N.E.2d 1198 (1996) ().
The uncontradicted testimony in the record establishes that Toyota's dealership purchased the chair, at the latest, in 1990: (1) Anthony Cassello, the owner of River Oaks Toyota since 1980, testified that the last chairs purchased were in 1987 and that chairs brought to River Oaks Toyota from his Michigan City dealership were purchased no later then 1990; (2) Joe Cassello testified that the chair involved in Babich's accident was at the dealership when he began his employment at River Oaks Toyota in 1990; (3) Ellen Cassello, who was employed at River Oaks Toyota since 1987, testified that she could not recall any chairs being purchased for Toyota after 1987; and (4) Lebo testified that new furniture was purchased in 1987 when Toyota relocated to Calumet City. The unrebutted testimony in the record conclusively establishes that the chair was purchased and being used at Toyota, at the latest, in 1990. Flair Design was alleged to be the manufacturer of the chair and Toyota was alleged to be a consumer of the chair. With a seller and consumer involved in this case, we apply the 10-year limitations period because it expired earlier. Garza, 172 Ill.2d at 379-80, 217 Ill. Dec. 260, 666 N.E.2d 1198. Accordingly, (1) because the chair was purchased by Toyota between 1987 and 1990, (2) because we apply the 10-year limitations period because it expired earlier, (3) because Babich was required to file his consumer lawsuit, at the latest, in 2000, and (4) because Babich's products liability action was filed on July 12, 2002, the lawsuit was untimely because it was commenced in 2002, two years after the expiration of the 10-year limitations periods prescribed in section 13-213(b) of the Code. Garza, 172 Ill.2d at 379-80, 217 Ill.Dec. 260, 666 N.E.2d 1198; 735 ILCS 5/13-213(b) (West 2002).
Babich maintains that the statute of limitations has not expired because Albrecht acquired information that indicates that Toyota's chair was eight years old. According to Babich, Albrecht's testimony regarding the information included in the document responding to her November 15, 2001, letter created a material issue of fact. We disagree. On a motion for summary judgment, a trial court cannot consider evidence that would be inadmissible at trial. CCP Ltd. Partnership v. First Source Financial, Inc., 368...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Pavlovich
...of appeal in appeal No. 1-18-0185. Normally, this would preclude our consideration of these documents. Babich v. River Oaks Toyota , 377 Ill. App. 3d 425, 430, 316 Ill.Dec. 353, 879 N.E.2d 420 (2007). However, the notice of appeal in appeal No. 1-18-0185 was filed with this court by the cle......
-
Wofford v. Tracy
...action arises not from personal injuries, but from the destruction of property. We disagree.¶ 32 In Babich v. River Oaks Toyota, 377 Ill.App.3d 425, 316 Ill.Dec. 353, 879 N.E.2d 420 (2007), the plaintiff filed product-liability and negligent-spoliation claims against the defendants. The Fir......
-
Kern v. Arlington Ridge Pathology, S.C., 1-07-2615.
...Ill.Dec. 834, 856 N.E.2d 639 (2006). On appeal, an order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Babich v. River Oaks Toyota, 377 Ill.App.3d 425, 427, 316 Ill.Dec. 353, 879 N.E.2d 420 (2007). While the evidence must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, evidence unf......
-
Keevil v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.
...procedural and substantive rules that apply to the underlying action apply to the spoliation action. See Babich v. River Oaks Toyota, 377 Ill. App. 3d 425, 426 (2007) (citing Boyd, 166 Ill. 2d at 193) (In products liability action, court found that, "[b]ecause this is a products action and ......