St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 72779,72779 |
| Citation | 605 N.E.2d 555,153 Ill.2d 1,178 Ill.Dec. 761 |
| Parties | , 178 Ill.Dec. 761 Thomas Allen ST. LOUIS, Appellant, v. ROCKWELL GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
David E. Rapoport and Michael S. Friman, of Becker, Baizer & Rapoport, Highland Park, and Harold A. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, for appellant.
Thomas B. McNeill and George J. Tzanetopoulos, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, for appellee Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc.
Sweeney & Riman, Ltd., Chicago (Michele J. Braun, of counsel), for appellee Skidmore & Mason, Inc.
Jeffrey E. Martin, of Karlin & Fleisher, Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.
In 1972 the Kankakee Daily Journal installed a new printing press. Twelve years later, on October 12, 1984, Thomas St. Louis, an employee, was injured when his arm was caught and crushed by this press. On August 11, 1986, he filed a complaint against the manufacturer and vendor of the press, defendant Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. (Rockwell); then on October 10, 1986, plaintiff amended the complaint to add the contractor who installed the press, Skidmore & Mason, Inc. (Skidmore), and others as defendants.
Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Rockwell was negligent in the design, manufacture and installation of the printing press (count I) and that Rockwell breached the statutory warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose (count II). In regard to Skidmore, plaintiff alleges that they negligently installed the printing press (count V). Rockwell moved to dismiss counts I and II of the complaint, and Skidmore moved to dismiss count V, pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev. Stat.1989, ch. 110, par. 2-619(a)(5)). Both defendants argued that plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the 10-year statute of repose for construction activity found in section 13-214(b) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110, par. 13-214(b)). The trial court granted both motions to dismiss.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the printing press, under the terms of section 13-214, was an improvement to real property and, as such, a cause of action did not exist since plaintiff's injury occurred more than 10 years after defendants' alleged negligence. (220 Ill.App.3d 704, 163 Ill.Dec. 142, 581 N.E.2d 93.) We vacate the lower court judgments and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Two issues are raised by this case. First, whether the printing press is an improvement to real property. Second, if so, does Rockwell, the company primarily responsible for its design and manufacture, fall within the scope of section 13-214? Due to an insufficient factual record concerning the press and the construction modifications which were necessary in order to install it, we are unable to determine whether the press constitutes an "improvement to real property."
Whether an item constitutes an "improvement to real property" is a question of law. Its resolution, however, is grounded in fact. The defining limits of what constitutes an "improvement to real property" is, for our court, a matter of first impression.
Section 13-214(b) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides:
"(b) No action based upon tort, contract or otherwise may be brought against any person for an act or omission of such person in the design, planning, supervision, observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property after 10 years have elapsed from the time of such act or omission." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110, par. 13-214(b).)
Black's law dictionary defines "improvement" as:
"A valuable addition made to property (usually real estate) or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement, costing labor or capital, and intended to enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for new or further purposes." Black's Law Dictionary 682 (5th ed. 1979).
A minority of courts have relied upon the common law of fixtures to interpret the phrase "improvement to real property." (See generally Smith v. Allen-Bradley Co. (W.D.Va.1974), 371 F.Supp. 698.) The term "fixture" and the phrase "improvement to real property" are not synonymous. A fixture is often thought of as a former chattel which, while retaining its separate physical identity, is so connected with the reality that a disinterested observer would consider it a part thereof. A common example of such a fixture is a furnace. An improvement, on the other hand, after being installed, may not have an identity separate from the overall system or building in which it is located. (Mullis v. Southern Co. Services, Inc. (1982), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ambrosia Land Investments, LLC v. Peabody Coal Co.
...of the question is grounded in fact. Garner v. Kinnear Mfg. Co., 37 F.3d 263, 266 (7th Cir.1994); St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Sys. Inc., 153 Ill.2d 1, 178 Ill.Dec. 761, 605 N.E.2d 555 (1992). Because we sit in diversity, we apply Illinois substantive law. Ass'n Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Car......
-
Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
...more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs. E.g., Adair, 741 F.2d at 114;St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Sys., Inc., 153 Ill.2d 1, 178 Ill.Dec. 761, 605 N.E.2d 555, 556 (1992); St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Webster City, 766 N.W.2d 796, 799–800 (Iowa 2009); Sie......
-
Stanley v. Ameren Ill. Co., 12 C 06073
...question is whether installing the insulation was improving real property under § 13–214(b). In St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc., 153 Ill.2d 1, 178 Ill.Dec. 761, 605 N.E.2d 555 (1992), the Illinois Supreme Court identified four relevant criteria for assessing whether something is......
-
Bailey v. Allstate Development Corp.
...under section 13-214(a) must take into consideration each of the factors outlined in St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc., 153 Ill.2d 1, 178 Ill.Dec. 761, 605 N.E.2d 555 (1992). In St. Louis, our supreme court "Relevant criteria for determining what constitutes an `improvement to rea......
-
Table of Cases
...Medical Center v. Vernon, 217 Ill App3d 287, 576 NE2d 1230, 160 Ill Dec 276 (5th Dist 1991), §3:91 St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems , 153 Ill2d 1, 605 NE2d 555, 178 Ill Dec 761 (1992), §3:341 St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 US 283, 58 S Ct 586 (1938), §§6:213, 8:381 ......
-
Statutes of Limitations
...property” is not a mere repair or replacement, but an enhancement to the value of the property. [ St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems , 153 Ill2d 1, 605 NE2d 555, 178 Ill Dec 761 (1992).] There has been much litigation over what constitutes an improvement. In PRaCtICe: I mPRovement C heCk......
-
Statutes of Limitations
...property” is not a mere repair or replacement, but an enhancement to the value of the property. [ St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems , 153 Ill2d 1, 605 NE2d 555, 178 Ill Dec 761 (1992).] There has been much litigation over what constitutes an improvement. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 3-45 Sta......
-
Statutes of Limitations
...property” is not a mere repair or replacement, but an enhancement to the value of the property. [ St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems , 153 Ill2d 1, 605 NE2d 555, 178 Ill Dec 761 (1992).] There has been much litigation over what constitutes an improvement. IN PRACTICE: ImPRovEmENT ChECkLI......