Board of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C and S, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-0817,86-0817 |
| Citation | 121 Ill.Dec. 643,525 N.E.2d 950,171 Ill.App.3d 737 |
| Parties | , 121 Ill.Dec. 643, 47 Ed. Law Rep. 1108, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,874 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A, C AND S, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DIST. # 211, et al., Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. ABITIBI ASBESTOS MINING CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Meites, Frackman & Mulder, (Thomas R. Meites, Lynn Sara Frackman, Michael M. Mulder and Joan H. Burger, of counsel), Chicago Bd. of Educ. (Patricia Whitten, Susan Einspar-Wayne and Karen Gatsis Anderson, of counsel), Hager & Collins (John Hager and Elaine K.B. Siegel, of counsel), Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Haskell & Perrin, Jerome J. Duchowicz, Edward J. Matushek III, Chicago, for A & M Insulation Co.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller (Robert L. Martier, Chicago, of counsel), for Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
Gorham, Metge, Bowman, Hourigan (Edward H. MacCabe, Chicago, of counsel), for John J. Moroney & Co.
Williams & Montgomery, Ltd (Karl R. Fink, Chicago, of counsel), for Standard Insulation.
Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler (Patrick J. Lamb and James C. Murray, Chicago, of counsel), for GAF Corp.
Kiesler & Berman (Cynthia A. Meister, Chicago, of counsel), Hopkins & Sutter (Marilyn Klawiter, Chicago, of counsel), for A, C and S.
Schiff, Hardin, Waite (Robert Riley, Catherine Masters Epstein and Robert Campbell, Chicago, of counsel), for Owens-Illinois Inc.
Arnstein, Gluck, Barron & Milligan (Louis A. Lehr, Patrick F. Geary, Chicago, and Theodore T. Schule, of counsel), for Hill-Behan Lumber Co. and J.J. Barney Lumber Co.
Keevers & Hittle (Paul M. Hummel, Chicago, of counsel), for Eagle Picher Industries.
Keck, Mahin & Cate (James T. Otis, Clarence O. Redman, James H. Ryan and Robert W. Pratt, Chicago, of counsel), for U.S. Gypsum Corp.
McDermott, Will & Emery (Walter M. Jones and Lois J. Lipton, Chicago, of counsel), for Cassiar Min. Corp.
Nolan, O'Malley & Dunne (S. Robert Depke, Chicago, of counsel), for Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.
Kirkland & Ellis (John H. Morrison, Chicago, of counsel), for Pfizer, Inc.
Sweeney and Riman, Ltd. (Harry G. Sachrison, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for Keene Corp. Karon, Morrison & Savikas, Ltd. (Nancy Schaefer, David S. Fleming, Chicago, of counsel), for National Gypsum Co.
Schoen & Smith (David M. Smith, Chicago, of counsel), for Pittsburg Corning Corp.
Chadwell & Kayser, Ltd. (J. Michael Newton, Chicago, of counsel), for Raymark Industries.
Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. (Edward McCambridge, Chicago, of counsel), for H.K. Porter Co., Inc.
Rooks, Pitts & Poust (Jerry Groark, Doug Roller, Terrance E. Kiwala, and William Seith, Chicago, of counsel), for Chicago Fire Brick Co.
John B. Grogan, Ltd. (Susan Gunty, John B. Groganm, Chicago, of counsel), for Grant Wilson, Inc.
McDermott, Will & Emery (Walter M. Jones and Lois J. Lipton, Chicago, of counsel), for Uniroyal, Inc. and Georgia Pacific Corp.
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd (Frank Heap and John J. Verscaj, Chicago, of counsel), for W.R. Grace Co.
Baker & McKenzie (Patrick Maloney and Daniel Cheely, Chicago, of counsel), for Fiberboard Corp.
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon (Edward J. Melia, Chicago, of counsel), for Cumbustion Engineering Inc. and Certainteed Corp.
Kurnik & Cipolla (James S. Stephenson, of counsel), Arlington Heights, for Nicolet, Inc.
Michael W. Rathsack, Chicago, for Mauritzon, Inc.
Connelly & Mustes (Michael P. Connelly, Chicago, and John W. Potter, Jr., of counsel), for Celotex & Carey Canada, Ltd.
Pretzel & Stouffer Chartered (John V. Smith, Chicago, of counsel), James L. Hafele, P.C., Peoria, for U.S. Mineral Products.
Johnson, Cusack & Bell, Ltd. (Jack Riley, Chicago, of counsel), for Proko Industries, Inc.
O'Connor & Schiff (William Brittan, Chicago, of counsel), for Iten Industries, Inc.
French, Rogers, Kezelis & Kominiarek (Robert E. Douglas, Chicago, of counsel), for Armstrong World Industries Inc.
Burke, Bosselman, Frenogel, Weaver & Ryan (Edward F. Ryan, Keith A. Klopfenstein and Victor P. Filippini, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for Union Carbide Corp.
Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess (Robert Soderstrom, Shaun McParland and Stephen T. Grossmark, Chicago, of counsel), for Flintkote Co.
Gozdecki & Zido (Eugene R. Gozdecki, Chicago, of counsel), for C. Tennant, Son & Co. of N.Y.
Murphy, Hupp, Foote & Mielke, Aurora (William C. Murphy, Chicago, of counsel), The Law Offices of Thomas J. Keevers, Chicago (Susan G. Castagnoli, Naperville, of counsel), Hannafan & Handler, Ltd. (Steven P. Handler and William A. Lockhart, Chicago, of counsel), H. Case Ellis, Crystal Lake, Cowan, Crowley & Hager (John Hager, Chicago, of counsel), Conklin & Adler, Ltd. (Robert M. Wigoda, Chicago, of counsel), Moore, Costello & Hart, St. Paul, Minn. (Robert W. Lucas, of counsel), Peterson, Ross, Schloerb & Seidel (Michael M. Lane, Ellen J. Kerschner and Richard R. Ryan, Chicago, of counsel), Levy and Erens (Keith C. McDole and Steven A. Kadish, Chicago, of counsel), Robert Bell, Jr., Chicago, Donald J. O'Brien, Jr. and James Dower, Chicago, Holleb & Coff, Ltd. (William I. Goldberg and Jeffrey H. Hornstein, Chicago, of counsel), Hager & Collins (John Hayes, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Gooding & Schroeder, Geneva, (John L. Schroeder, of counsel), for Wilken Insulation Co.
Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen. (Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Chicago, of counsel), for the People, amicus curiae.
Judson H. Miner, Corp. Counsel, Deborah L. Thorne, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, for the Corp. Counsel of Chicago, amicus curiae. Justice McNAMARA delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiffs, thirty-four Illinois public school districts, are required by the Asbestos Abatement Act () to replace all asbestos-containing products in their buildings, for which they may receive some reimbursement from the State. Plaintiffs seek full reimbursement and additional damages from the seventy-eight named defendants, which either mined, manufactured, installed or sold the product.
In a consolidated action, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaints with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of the complaints which, with some duplication, stated numerous causes of action, including various allegations regarding strict liability; negligence; restitution; a private right of action under the Asbestos Abatement Act; consumer fraud; breach of warranty; negligent misrepresentation; fraudulent misrepresentation; and concert of action. Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred in finding the action was barred by the statute of limitations, and erred in denying their motion to amend the pleadings.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded facts must be taken as true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the opponent. (United Air Lines, Inc. v. CEI Industries of Illinois, Inc. (1986), 148 Ill.App.3d 332, 102 Ill.Dec. 1, 499 N.E.2d 558.) A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved which would entitle plaintiffs to relief. Bagel v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (1985), 132 Ill.App.3d 82, 87 Ill.Dec. 453, 477 N.E.2d 54.
We believe that the trial court misconceived the nature of the action. The error reveals itself most clearly in the strict liability and negligence counts, but also undermines the other dismissal of the actions. Plaintiffs allege both strict liability and negligence in tort. In Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. (1982), 91 Ill.2d 69, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443, the court held that the policy considerations addressed in strict liability cases also apply to negligence actions. Thus, we treat these two counts together.
The trial court dismissed these causes of action on the basis that plaintiffs failed to allege any actual property damage or personal injury, and thus alleged only economic loss, which is not recoverable in tort; and that the buildings in question were not considered "products" under a products liability theory.
In Moorman, the court held that under a strict liability in tort theory recovery must be denied for solely economic losses. (Accord East River Steamship Corp v. Transamerican Delavel, Inc. (1986), 476 U.S. 858, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865.) The remedy for economic loss lies in contract, and not in tort law.
Economic loss is defined as damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the product, or consequent loss of profits. The diminution in value occurs because the product is inferior in quality and does not work for the general purpose for which it was manufactured and sold. Moorman, 91 Ill.2d 69, 82, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443, quoting Note, Economic Loss in Products Liability Jurisprudence, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 917-918 (1966).
Generally, economic losses alone, with no allegation of other damage, cannot support a tort cause of action. A safety-insurance policy underlies tort law. (Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (3d Cir.1981), 652 F.2d 1165, cited in Moorman.) Tort law traditionally protects individuals and property from physical harm. The strict liability in tort theory focuses on the unreasonably dangerous nature of the product. (Moorman; Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182.) "[T]he essence of a product liability tort case is not that the plaintiff failed to receive the quality of product he expected, but that the plaintiff has been exposed, through a hazardous product, to an unreasonable risk of injury to his person or property." ( Moorman, 91 Ill.2d at 81, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443.) In contrast the dangerous nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pulte Home Corp., Inc. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc., 89-205-CIV-T-17A.
...tort law. Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17, 403 P.2d 145 (Cal.1965); Chicago Board of Education v. A, C & S, Inc., 171 Ill.App.3d 737, 121 Ill.Dec. 643, 525 N.E.2d 950 (1988); Chicago Heights Venture v. Dynamit Nobel of America, Inc., 782 F.2d 723 (7th Cir.1986); McCla......
-
Continental Ins. v. Page Engineering Co.
...basis that no one had "yet developed an asbestos-related disease." Id. at 978. See also Board of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 171 Ill.App.3d 737, 121 Ill.Dec. 643, 525 N.E.2d 950 (1988), which is also a school asbestos material case. Comparable to City of Greenville is 2000 W......
-
Board of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C and S, Inc.
...negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, restitution, consumer fraud and breach of warranty counts. (171 Ill.App.3d 737, 121 Ill.Dec. 643, 525 N.E.2d 950.) The remaining four counts were not raised on appeal. We agree with the appellate court that these complaints allege suf......
-
Smoler v. Bd. of Educ. for W. Northfield Sch. Dist. #31
...refers only to the legal capacity of a school board. (See ECF No. 20 at 2) (citing Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C &S, Inc. , 171 Ill. App. 3d 737, 754, 525 N.E.2d 950, 121 Ill.Dec. 643 (1988) and Bd. of Educ. of Riverview Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 2 of Woodford Cty. v. Woodford ......