Chicago Land and Trust Company v, United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
2022 IL App (2d) 210299-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiff Nicholas Fitz (beneficiary of a land trust), his law firm, and the trustee sued contractor USS, its owner Thomas, and St. Charles building inspector Robert Vann after a dispute over installation/testing of helical piers for an outdoor addition.
- Plaintiffs allege USS performed compression testing but withheld "compression logs," and that Thomas and Vann conspired or acted to withhold or not submit the logs so USS could leverage payment; the City later voided the permit.
- Plaintiffs pleaded multiple tort counts against Vann (waste; intentional interference with prospective business advantage; fraudulent concealment; consumer fraud nonsuited below; civil conspiracy; injunctive relief), suing Vann in his individual capacity.
- Vann moved under 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (combined 2-615 and 2-619) arguing plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred by the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year statute and, alternatively, failed to state fraud-based claims with requisite specificity.
- The trial court dismissed counts II–IV and VI with prejudice for both failure to state a claim and as barred by the one-year limitations period (745 ILCS 10/8-101(a)); plaintiffs asked to amend but the court denied leave. Plaintiffs appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against Vann are barred by the Tort Immunity Act one-year limitations period | Fitz: Vann acted maliciously/individually so the Act and its 1-year limit should not apply | Vann: he was a City employee; claims are "civil actions" under the Act and were filed more than one year after accrual | Held: Claims accrued no later than Oct. 26, 2018; suit filed Nov. 10, 2020—time-barred under 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a); dismissal affirmed |
| Whether pleading Vann’s conduct as willful, wanton, or malicious removes him from the Act’s limitations | Fitz: alleged willful/malicious conduct and fraud; thus immunity/limitations inapplicable | Vann: plaintiffs failed to plead the specific elements required to invoke a willful-and-wanton exception; Illinois does not recognize a broad corrupt-or-malicious exception | Held: Plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead willful/wanton misconduct; the malicious/corrupt exception is not a recognized escape from the Act; limitations apply |
| Whether fraud/conspiracy counts were pleaded with required specificity under section 2-615 | Fitz: could amend to add specifics and tolling facts discovered in further investigation | Vann: counts IV and VI lack particularized factual allegations of fraud/conspiracy | Held: Court found fraud/conspiracy allegations insufficiently specific; dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper (alternative basis) |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Fitz: sought leave to re-plead fraud/conspiracy to cure defects and establish tolling | Vann: final dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because claims were time-barred and defects incurable | Held: Denial proper—amendment would be futile because claims were barred by the statute of limitations; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fligelman v. City of Chicago, 264 Ill. App. 3d 1035 (1994) (appellate courts must verify jurisdiction)
- Downey v. Wood Dale Park District, 286 Ill. App. 3d 194 (1997) (combined 2-615/2-619 motion procedure)
- Zahl v. Krupa, 365 Ill. App. 3d 653 (2006) (de novo review of dismissals under 2-615 and 2-619)
- Palmolive Tower Condominiums, LLC v. Simon, 409 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2011) (Rule 304(a) finality considerations)
- Village of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enterprises, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 484 (2001) (no corrupt-or-malicious-motives exception to Tort Immunity Act)
- Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104 (2008) (whether action is against the State depends on issues and relief sought)
- Floyd v. Rockford Park District, 355 Ill. App. 3d 695 (2005) (elements required to plead willful and wanton conduct)
- Sperandeo v. Zavitz, 365 Ill. App. 3d 691 (2006) (Tort Immunity Act’s one-year limitations applies even when employee is sued in individual capacity)
- Griffin v. Willoughby, 369 Ill. App. 3d 405 (2006) (statute of limitations under the Tort Immunity Act is distinct from immunity defense)
- McKay v. Kusper, 252 Ill. App. 3d 450 (1993) (scope-of-employment and discretionary-act immunity analysis)
- Talas v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 134 Ill. App. 3d 103 (1985) (factors for trial court’s exercise of discretion in allowing amendments)