J & B Steel Contractors, Inc. v. C. Iber & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. 3-92-0807,3-92-0807
• Citation: 617 N.E.2d 405,246 Ill.App.3d 523
• Parties: , 187 Ill.Dec. 197 J & B STEEL CONTRACTORS, INC., d/b/a J & B Steel Reinforcing and Erection, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. IBER & SONS, INC., and Proctor Community Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 405

617 N.E.2d 405

246 Ill.App.3d 523, 187 Ill.Dec. 197

J & B STEEL CONTRACTORS, INC., d/b/a J & B Steel Reinforcing and Erection, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. IBER & SONS, INC., and Proctor Community Hospital,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 3-92-0807.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Third District.

June 4, 1993.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing

Aug. 3, 1993.

William R. Kohlhase (argued), Miller, Hall & Triggs, Peoria, for J & B Steel Contractors, Inc.

F. Louis Behrends (argued), Frank A. Hess, Behrends & Gentry, Peoria, for C. Iber & Sons, Inc., and Proctor Community Hosp.

Justice BRESLIN delivered the modified opinion of the court on denial of rehearing:

The plaintiff, J & B Steel Contractors, Inc., filed a four-count, second-amended complaint against the defendants, C. Iber & Sons, Inc. and Proctor Community Hospital. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110, par. 2-615). The plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The facts pleaded in the plaintiff's complaint indicate that Proctor Community Hospital hired defendant C. Iber & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant) as a general contractor to make certain improvements on property that the hospital owned in Peoria, Illinois. Around December 4, 1989, the defendant subcontracted with the plaintiff to perform certain work on that project which involved a parking structure. On August 31, 1990, the plaintiff suspended its performance under the contract and subsequently filed this lawsuit.

Counts I through III of the plaintiff's complaint sought foreclosure on a mechanics' lien claim. Count IV sought damages for a breach of contract. All four counts referred to a contract between the parties which was attached to the complaint as Exhibit A. The various counts all contained the following allegations. An "understanding" between the parties provided that the agreed price for the plaintiff's work was $220,799 and that based on that agreed price, the plaintiff was not obligated to perform work beyond July 31, 1990. The contract between the parties was in accordance with the terms of a telephone "proposal" made on December 4, 1989 by the plaintiff to the defendant, and was "confirmed" by the defendant's " Purchase Order * * * dated December 7, 1989" (Exhibit A).

Counts I, III, and IV alleged that in its role as general contractor, the defendant had an obligation to supervise and coordinate the construction to allow the plaintiff to complete its work on or before July 31, 1990. Additionally, Count I alleged that the defendant breached obligations of good faith and fair dealing implied in the contract by failing to correct problems in the progress of the work.

Count II alleged in the alternative that the plaintiff incurred extra costs as a consequence of a change in the "scope" of its work due to the defendant's change in the schedule of the job so that it could not be completed by July 31, 1990. Count II further alleged that under the contract, the defendant was obligated to issue a change order to compensate the plaintiff for additional costs resulting from a change in the "the scope of [the plaintiff's] work to the period beyond July 31, 1990."

Count III, unlike Counts I and II, did not seek recovery for extra work or costs incurred as a result of the defendant's breach of contract, but only recovery for the amount earned under the original contract price. Count IV sought recovery for lost profits on work that the plaintiff did not perform because of the defendant's breach of contract.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant's motion alleged four different grounds for dismissal. Specifically, it alleged that: (1) the plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements of section 24 of the Mechanics Lien Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 85, par. 24); (2) the "no damage for delay" clause in the written contract precluded any recovery for the plaintiff; (3) the plaintiff could not recover because it breached the contract; (4) counts I through III of the plaintiff's complaint were redundant. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered a written order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

As a preliminary matter, we must address the issue of whether the plaintiff satisfied the statutory notice requirements under the Mechanics' Lien Act.

Section 24 of the Mechanics' Lien Act provides that the 90-day notice required to perfect a subcontractor's lien must be "sent by registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested and delivery limited to addressee only, to or personally served on the owner of record or his agent * * *." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 85, par. 24.) Here, the certified mail receipt was not limited to addressee only. The receipt shows that Pat Anderson signed it. The record does not show what relationship the signatory had with the defendant hospital other than that he or she signed the certified receipt in the space for the signature of the agent.

Although Illinois case law provides that notice is required as a basis for bringing a cause of action under the Mechanics' Lien Act, if the limited delivery language does not result in a lack of notification, then the lack of notice is not a basis for invalidating the plaintiff's claim. Watson v. Auburn Iron Works, Inc. (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 265, 318 N.E.2d 508; Matthews Roofing Co. v. Community Bank & Trust Co. (1990), 194 Ill.App.3d 200, 141 Ill.Dec. 143, 550 N.E.2d 1189; A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co. v. State Farm (1992), 225 Ill.App.3d 851, 167 Ill.Dec. 354, 587 N.E.2d 623.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it does not specifically indicate that the defendant received actual notice.

We disagree. The defendant did not allege lack of actual notice and did not argue that it was prejudiced by a lack of actual notice. We find that it was incumbent on the defendant to assert that it did not receive actual notice. None of the cases cited by the parties allowed the dismissal of a complaint for lack of notice on a section 2- 615 motion to dismiss. Rather, the cited cases involved motions for summary judgment at which stage in the proceedings it could be conclusively determined whether the defendant received actual notice. Illinois courts interpret the strict requirements of notice by examining how effectively a party did in fact notify the other side rather than simply basing rights solely on whether every phrase of the statute was followed in exact detail. (See Matthews Roofing Co. v. Community Bank & Trust Co. (1990), 194 Ill.App.3d 200, 141 Ill.Dec. 143, 550 N.E.2d 1189.) Accordingly, we hold that under the circumstance presented here, lack of notice was not a proper ground for dismissal on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Turning to the merits, we note that the plaintiff first argues on appeal that the defendant had a duty to supervise the construction project so that the plaintiff could complete its work by July 31, 1990. While acknowledging that the written contract between the parties did not provide for a set completion date, the plaintiff argues that the written contract contemplated an "oral understanding" that the work would be completed by that date. In support of that argument, the plaintiff points to the following contractual provisions: (1) the first sentence of the contract stated, "Enter the following order in accordance with the terms and conditions of your telephone proposal on 12/4/89 * * * "; (2) it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to supply a "full time foreman experienced in post-tension concrete, * * * through July 31, 1990"; and (3) it was the defendant's responsibility to "supply sufficient manpower and supervision to keep the job on schedule as agreed upon between [the parties]."

In response, the defendant points out that all four counts of the plaintiff's complaint were premised on the allegation that it was "understood" that the plaintiff was not obligated to perform work beyond July 31, 1990. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's reliance upon an alleged oral understanding or agreement was barred by the parol evidence rule and the doctrine of merger.

The parol evidence rule provides that when two parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence, whether parol or otherwise, of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing. (3 Corbin on Contracts ch. 26, § 573, at 357 (1960); Maas v. Board of Trustees (1981), 94 Ill.App.3d 562, 50 Ill.Dec. 35, 418 N.E.2d 1029.) Discussions, prior negotiations, and propositions are merged into the writing and the rights of the parties are governed by the written contract. (Evans v. Berko (1951), 408 Ill. 438, 97 N.E.2d 316.) However, the threshold question for the application of the rule is whether the writing was integrated, i.e., whether it was intended by the parties to be a final and complete expression of the entire agreement. Pecora v. Szabo (1981), 94 Ill.App.3d 57, 49 Ill.Dec. 577, 418 N.E.2d 431.

Under Illinois law, there is a split of authority as to the proper standard to apply in determining whether an integration has taken place. According to one line of cases, the question of integration is normally to be decided by the trial court as a matter of law and if the contract imports on its face to be a complete expression of the whole agreement, it is presumed that the parties introduced into it every material item, and parol evidence cannot be admitted to add another term to the agreement. (Pecora v. Szabo (1981), 94 Ill.App.3d 57, 49 Ill.Dec. 577, 418 N.E.2d 431; ...