Gillespie Community Unit School District No. 7 v. Wight & Co.
4 N.E.3d 37
Ill.2014Background
- Gillespie SD No. 7 sued Wight & Co. for professional negligence, breach of implied warranty, and fraudulent misrepresentation by concealment related to building a Benld elementary school.
- Wight sought summary judgment arguing 4-year and 5-year limitations under 13-214(a) and 13-205, respectively, with 13-214(e) excluding fraud claims from 13-214’s limits.
- Trial court denied dismissal; appellate court affirmed that 13-205 applies to fraudulent misrepresentation, not 13-214.
- This court granted review to resolve whether 13-214(e) excludes fraud-based construction claims from any limitations, or whether 13-205 controls.
- The accrual period under the parties’ Standard Agreement (Article 1.3.7.3) set substantial completion as accrual date, which was fall 2002, affecting timeliness of the 2010 fraud claim.
- The Court affirms the appellate court, holding 13-205 applies to the fraud claim and the March 2010 filing was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 13-214(e) exempts fraud-based construction claims from all limitations. | 13-214(e) excludes fraud-based claims from its limits. | 13-214(e) does not eliminate all limits; Rozny governs fraud actions. | 13-214(e) does not abolish all limits; 13-205 governs fraud-based construction claims. |
| Whether Rozny governs the applicable limitations for fraud-based construction claims post-13-214. | Rozny supports no-application of 13-205? | Rozny remains applicable to fraud-based construction claims. | Rozny remains applicable; 13-205 applies to the fraud claim. |
| When did accrual commence under the Standard Agreement for the fraud claim? | Accrual should follow actual discovery, not substantial completion. | Accrual commenced at substantial completion per Article 1.3.7.3. | Accrual occurred at substantial completion fall 2002. |
| Is the March 2010 fraud claim time-barred under 13-205? | Claim timely under discovery rule; accrual date disputed. | Claim untimely because accrual in 2002 and 5-year limit expired by 2007. | Yes, claim untimely; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 (1969) (established all-inclusive limitation for fraud where not otherwise provided)
- Village of Fox Lake v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 178 Ill. App.3d 887 (2d Dist. 1989) (fraud counts not barred by 13-214(a) when misrepresentation theory)
- Continental Insurance Co. v. Walsh Construction Co. of Illinois, 171 Ill. App.3d 135 (1st Dist. 1988) (13-214(e) excludes fraud-based construction from 13-214; separate consideration)
- Champaign County Nursing Home v. Petry Roofing, Inc., 117 Ill. App.3d 76 (4th Dist. 1983) (discussion of saving clauses and construction claims under 13-214)
- Hernon v. E.W. Corrigan Construction Co., 149 Ill.2d 190 (1992) (distinguishes between accrual and repose in 13-214)