Danzig v. University of Chicago Charter School Corp.
2019 IL App (1st) 182187
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- On Feb. 24, 2017, two spectators (Danzig and Davis) were injured when a bench collapsed during a school play at the University of Chicago charter school.
- Plaintiffs filed identical negligence suits on Mar. 30, 2018, and amended them on Apr. 12, 2018, adding claims of willful and wanton misconduct.
- The charter school moved to dismiss under the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year statute of limitations (745 ILCS 10/8-101).
- The Professional Theater and Dance Youth Academy (dance academy), which had instructed students at the school and had been sued by plaintiffs, filed a counterclaim for contribution against the charter school on June 28, 2018.
- The charter school moved to dismiss that contribution claim under section 13-204(c) of the Code, arguing it was time-barred because plaintiffs could not timely sue the charter school.
- The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the charter school with prejudice (statute-barred) and later held that dismissal extinguished the dance academy’s contribution counterclaim; the dance academy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of challenge to dismissal of contribution claim | Dance academy argued it preserved the issue by moving to clarify after dismissal and thus timely opposed dismissal | Charter school argued dance academy forfeited review by not responding earlier to its motion to dismiss the counterclaim | Court: preserved — motion to dismiss was not presented earlier and dance academy timely raised the issue via motion to clarify, so no forfeiture |
| Applicability of section 13-204(b)/(c) time limits to contribution claim | Dance academy: its contribution claim was filed within two years of service and so is timely under §13-204(b) | Charter school: §13-204(c) bars contribution unless the original plaintiffs could have timely sued the party sought to be charged; plaintiffs could not timely sue due to Tort Immunity Act | Court: §13-204(c) governs; because plaintiffs could not timely sue the charter school when they filed, the dance academy’s contribution claim is barred |
| Whether Tort Immunity Act’s one-year limitation governs contribution claims | Dance academy: contribution should be measured by the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year rule (filed within one year of service) | Charter school: §13-204(c) preempts other limitation statutes for contribution actions | Court: §13-204(c) preempts the Tort Immunity Act for contribution claims; the one-year rule does not revive the contribution claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bowman, 229 Ill. 2d 461 (2008) (dictum that §13-204(c) bars contribution/indemnity when underlying plaintiffs could not have sued the potential indemnitor directly)
- Brooks v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 364 Ill. App. 3d 120 (2005) (§13-204(c) preempts other statutes of limitation, including the Tort Immunity Act, for contribution claims)
- Board of Managers of Wespark Condominium Ass'n v. Neumann Homes, Inc., 388 Ill. App. 3d 129 (2009) (contribution allowed only if plaintiff in underlying action could have timely sued the party from whom contribution is sought)
- Wallace v. Smyth, 203 Ill. 2d 441 (2002) (explaining nature and review of section 2-619 motions)
- Adukia v. Finney, 315 Ill. App. 3d 766 (2000) (example of contribution/indemnity discussion where underlying plaintiffs had timely sued defendants)