2019 IL App (1st) 180362
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Fifty-four former NFL players sued Riddell (helmet manufacturer) in Illinois state court alleging helmets were defective and that Riddell knew of and concealed risks of repeated head trauma causing latent neurodegenerative injuries (CTE, dementia, Alzheimer’s, etc.).
- All plaintiffs previously participated in the multidistrict federal litigation against the NFL (In re NFL Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation) and pursued/settled claims with the NFL for the same present and future latent brain injuries; Riddell had been named in the MDL master complaint, but these plaintiffs did not assert claims against Riddell there.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Illinois’ two-year personal-injury statute of limitations, arguing plaintiffs discovered their injuries (and wrongful cause) by the time they joined the federal MDL more than two years before filing state suits.
- Plaintiffs argued the discovery rule delays accrual until diagnosis of a specific neurodegenerative disease and alternatively invoked fraudulent concealment to toll the limitations period under the five-year statute.
- The trial court dismissed as time-barred; plaintiffs sought leave to amend to add diagnosis dates, which was denied as futile. The appellate court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did plaintiffs’ causes of action accrue under the discovery rule? | Accrual did not occur until each plaintiff was diagnosed with a specific neurodegenerative disorder. | Accrual occurred when plaintiffs knew they were injured and wrongfully caused those injuries, e.g., when they joined the MDL. | Accrual occurred at least by plaintiffs’ participation in the federal MDL; plaintiffs’ state suits are time-barred. |
| Did plaintiffs’ MDL filings limit/establish the date of discovery for accrual? | MDL complaints only pled symptoms; diagnosis timing controls accrual. | MDL master and short-form complaints sought relief for present and future latent brain injuries, showing knowledge of injury and wrongful cause. | MDL filings show plaintiffs sought recovery for latent injuries and future diagnoses, so they had requisite knowledge more than two years before filing state suits. |
| Can plaintiffs toll the statute by fraudulent concealment (5-year rule)? | Riddell fraudulently concealed the cause of action by misrepresenting helmet safety and hiding risks. | Plaintiffs had knowledge once MDL complaints were filed; no affirmative concealment by Riddell after MDL that prevented discovery. | Fraudulent-concealment tolling not available: plaintiffs pleaded no post-MDL concealment and had opportunity to sue Riddell during MDL. |
| Should plaintiffs be allowed leave to amend to add diagnosis dates after dismissal? | Amendment would show later diagnosis dates and cure timeliness. | Amendment would be futile because accrual is tied to prior knowledge shown by MDL participation. | Denial affirmed: proposed amendment would be futile and plaintiffs failed to proffer a proposed amended complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (discovery rule delays accrual until plaintiff knows or should know of injury and wrongful cause)
- VaSalle v. Celotex Corp., 161 Ill. App. 3d 808 (latent-disease accrual can be pegged at diagnosis of distinct disease)
- Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill. 2d 353 (limitations can run when plaintiff knows injury even if full extent not yet diagnosed)
- In re National Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, 307 F.R.D. 351 (MDL master complaint and settlement addressing present and future latent brain injuries)
- Moon v. Rhode, 2016 IL 119572 (prior filing may still leave fact question on accrual depending on knowledge)
- Morris v. Margulis, 197 Ill. 2d 28 (fraudulent concealment does not automatically extend limitations if time remained when fraud was discovered)
- Henderson Square Condo. Ass'n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC, 2015 IL 118139 (fraudulent concealment requires affirmative acts designed to prevent discovery)
- McCullough v. World Wrestling Entm't, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 3d 528 (knowledge of a single concussion is different from knowledge of progressive disorders like CTE)