Berry v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL 124999

Plaintiffs (Berry and Peysin) filed a class action on behalf of Chicago residents whose water mains/meters or partial lead service lines were replaced since 2008, asserting negligence and inverse-condemnation claims.
Chicago owns water mains and the portion of service lines up to the property line; homeowners own the in‑property portion. Many service lines were lead; City modernization (2008+) replaced mains/meters and sometimes only the City portion of lead service lines.
City treats water with polyphosphate to reduce lead leaching but alleged disturbance from meter/main work, reconnections using dissimilar metals (galvanic corrosion), and temporary shutoffs can dislodge protective coatings and increase lead risk.
Named plaintiffs allege elevated lead tests (Berry) or “significant” lead after flushing (Peysin), installed filters, received replacement cost estimates, but do not allege present physical injury from lead ingestion.
Trial court dismissed both counts with prejudice under section 2‑615 (failure to state a claim). The appellate court reversed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, affirming dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs alleged a cognizable injury in negligence (medical‑monitoring claim based on increased risk of lead exposure)	Plaintiffs contend the City’s work created an increased risk of lead exposure and therefore they need diagnostic medical testing/monitoring—a cognizable injury allowing tort recovery.	City argues an increased risk of future harm (and need for testing) is not itself a present injury; without actual harm plaintiffs cannot recover.	Court held increased risk/need for testing is not a cognizable injury in negligence; count I properly dismissed.
Whether alleged ‘‘more dangerous’’ service lines and risk of contamination constitute compensable damage for inverse condemnation	Plaintiffs assert City’s reconnections and partial replacements physically damaged service lines (made them more dangerous), producing special damage entitling owners to just compensation (replacement costs).	City argues plaintiffs allege only increased danger—not measurable, pecuniary loss or diminution in market value—and inverse condemnation requires measurable, special damage beyond that suffered by the public.	Court held allegations of increased danger without measurable pecuniary loss are speculative and not compensable under Illinois takings clause; count II properly dismissed.

Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 2008) (an increased risk of future harm is an element of damages for a present injury but is not itself a present injury)
Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 2016 IL 119861 (Ill. 2016) (inverse‑condemnation damage requires direct physical disturbance producing special damage beyond public generally)
Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n, 2020 IL 124107 (Ill. 2020) (reiterating principle that negligent act alone gives no cause of action until it produces actual injury)
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 (Ill. 1982) (limits on recovery where only economic loss or defective product causes purely economic damages)
Board of Education of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428 (Ill. 1989) (danger creating risk of harm is insufficient alone to award damages in negligence)
City of Winchester v. Ring, 312 Ill. 544 (Ill. 1924) (inverse‑condemnation recovery requires damage that affects property value and is susceptible to proof)