Hecktman v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
2016 IL App (1st) 151459
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Jerold and Ruth Hecktman bought three condo units in a high-rise (Optima Old Orchard Woods) as unfinished "vanilla-box" units; hardwood floors were later installed by a third-party contractor.
- After moving in, the hardwood floors cupped and bowed; plaintiffs alleged water infiltration and elevated humidity from defective curtain wall (windows) and HVAC systems caused the damage.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple developers/contractors for negligence seeking repair costs for the hardwood floors; defendants moved to dismiss under the economic loss doctrine (Moorman).
- The trial court dismissed the negligence counts with prejudice under Moorman; plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider was denied and they appealed.
- Several defendants settled or were dismissed from the appeal; the remaining appellees who briefed the case were J.P. Larsen and American Enclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moorman bars negligence recovery for damage to "other property" (hardwood floors) allegedly caused by building defects | Hecktman: Moorman should not bar recovery because the claim seeks damages for other property (floors), not the defective building components | Defendants: Damage to floors is consequential to qualitative defects in building systems and thus constitutes purely economic loss barred by Moorman | Court: Moorman bars the negligence claims—damage was consequent to latent, non-accidental defects and not within the sudden-dangerous-occurrence exception |
| Whether the "sudden and dangerous occurrence" exception applies | Hecktman: need only allege damage to other property, not a sudden event | Defendants: plaintiffs pleaded gradual deterioration from leaks/humidity, not a sudden calamitous event | Court: Exception requires both property damage and a sudden/dangerous event; plaintiffs alleged gradual deterioration, so exception does not apply |
| Whether contamination/humidity claim fits A, C & S asbestos precedent to avoid Moorman | Hecktman: humidity "contamination" should be treated like asbestos removal in A, C & S and allowed in tort without sudden event | Defendants: A, C & S is narrow—applies where contamination is hazardous/unreasonably dangerous; here humidity is not alleged to be hazardous | Court: A, C & S is not a general exception; plaintiffs did not allege hazardous contamination, so A, C & S does not save the tort claims |
| Whether post-construction installation of floors changes economic-loss analysis | Hecktman: floors were installed after building construction, so damage is to separate property | Defendants: timing does not change that damage is incidental to defective building systems | Court: Post-installation of floors does not alter that the harm is consequent to qualitative defects and is barred in tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Nat’l Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 (Illinois 1982) (establishes economic loss doctrine barring tort recovery for purely economic loss)
- In re Chicago Flood Litig., 176 Ill. 2d 179 (Illinois 1997) (clarifies that the sudden, dangerous occurrence exception requires both a dangerous event and property damage)
- Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171 (Illinois 1982) (latent structural defects causing gradual deterioration do not support tort recovery)
- Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428 (Illinois 1989) (narrow holding that hazardous contamination like asbestos may fall outside Moorman but is not a broad exception)
- City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351 (Illinois 2004) (discusses limits of Moorman and scope of its exceptions)
- Washington Courte Condominium Ass’n-Four v. Washington-Golf Corp., 150 Ill. App. 3d 681 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (incidental moisture damage from defective windows is consequential to qualitative defects and barred in tort)
- Chicago Heights Venture v. Dynamit Nobel of Am., Inc., 782 F.2d 723 (7th Cir. 1986) (applying Illinois law to hold water damage from defective roofing was economic loss)