Schott v. Halloran Construction Company, Inc.
2013 IL App (5th) 110428
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Schott plaintiffs allege personal injuries from falling off an unguarded retaining wall while patrolling as Swansea police.
- Wall was originally built and later reconstructed; construction completed by end of 1990 and involved three walls.
- In 1994 heavy rain caused a portion of the south wall to collapse and be rebuilt by others; Halloran later disputed rebuilding was an “improvement.”
- The circuit court denied summary judgment and new trial motions; the jury found for Lawrence (notwithstanding 50% contributory negligence) and damages were later determined.
- Appellate court reversed, holding the 10-year construction statute of repose barred the claims; portion rebuilt in 1994 did not renew the repose period; Chapman dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does reconstruction after 1994 constitute an improvement to real property under the statute of repose? | Schott argues the rebuild after collapse renewed the repose period. | Halloran contends the 1994 work was mere repair, not an improvement. | No; rebuilt work was not an improvement; repose period not renewed. |
| Does the unrepaired original portion of the wall fall within the repose bar? | The original wall (the part not damaged in 1994) should still be barred by repose. | Only the rebuilt portion matters; the original portion is time-barred. | The unrepaired original portion is barred by the original 1990 completion date; action against Halloran is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Louis v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc., 153 Ill. 2d 1 (1992) (defined improvement to real property and set criteria for its determination)
- Litchfield Community Unit School District No. 12 v. Specialty Waste Services, Inc., 325 Ill. App. 3d 164 (2001) (asbestos-removal work not an improvement; ordinary repair/maintenance)
- Morietta v. Reese Construction Co., 347 Ill. App. 3d 1077 (2004) (road work that patched rather than rebuilt did not constitute improvement)
- Adcock v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 274 Ill. App. 3d 519 (1995) (definition and criteria guiding improvement analysis)
- Wright v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 335 Ill. App. 3d 948 (2002) (purpose of statute of repose is to insulate construction participants from stale claims)