Costello v. Urban Air Adventure Park North Riverside
2025 IL App (1st) 250219-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Costello sued Urbanstrong LLC and related entities for injuries allegedly caused by their negligence during her use of a trampoline at Urban Air Adventure Park in North Riverside, Illinois, on September 26, 2021.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration, presenting two electronically signed release and indemnification agreements plus a membership agreement, all allegedly executed by Costello and containing arbitration clauses.
- Plaintiff disputed whether she had actually electronically signed the agreements, or whether there were adequate security procedures in place to verify her electronic signatures.
- The defendants supported the motion with unsigned agreements (with her name as e-signature) but did not provide any affidavit authenticating or verifying the signatures.
- After limited discovery (including a Rule 191 deposition of Urbanstrong's representative), the trial court found a factual dispute as to whether a valid arbitration agreement existed and denied the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.
- Defendants appealed, contending evidence and procedures were sufficient to bind Costello to arbitration under the Illinois Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (IUETA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authenticity of Electronic Signature | Defendants did not prove she signed agreements. | Registration process evidences her signatures. | Defendants failed to authenticate the agreements. |
| Verification Procedure Adequacy under IUETA | No security measures or evidence to show identity. | Website process is sufficient verification. | No adequate process or evidence to show her identity. |
| Requirement of Affidavit under § 2-619(a)(9) | No affidavit, so motion must fail. | Submitted agreements suffice as evidence. | Affidavit is required; motion unsupported, so denied. |
| Burden Shifting for Compelling Arbitration | Burden is on defendants to show valid agreement. | Plaintiff did not deny signing. | Defendants must first make prima facie showing; failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (Ill. 2009) (establishing court's obligation to examine its own jurisdiction)
- Cabinet Service Tile, Inc. v. Schroeder, 255 Ill. App. 3d 865 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (order denying section 2-619 motion is generally not appealable)
- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Pace Suburban Bus Service, 2016 IL App (1st) 151659 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (pleadings interpreted in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (Ill. 1993) (standards for burden-shifting on 2-619 motion)
- Vassilkovska v. Woodfield Nissan, Inc., 358 Ill. App. 3d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (standard of review for denial of motion to compel arbitration)