State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Welborne
2017 IL App (3d) 160231
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In April 2009 Schreiber hired Welbourne (Welbourne Builders) to repair a leaky roof and replace four roof vents; Welbourne gave a two‑year workmanship guarantee and was paid in full.
- ~18 months later a new leak occurred in a different area; Welbourne inspected (winter), concluded snow/ice around vents caused the leak, then replaced the vents with vents having ice guards at his own cost and the leaks stopped.
- Schreiber claimed interior water damage; State Farm (insurer/subrogee) paid $4,650.01 plus a $500 deductible and sued Welbourne in small claims for negligent roof repair.
- The trial court conducted an informal bench trial under Ill. S. Ct. R. 286(b); parties submitted written statements and adopted them in court.
- The trial court found Welbourne negligent (citing lack of ice guards and res ipsa loquitur), entered judgment for $5,150.01, and denied Welbourne’s motion to reconsider.
- On appeal the appellate court affirmed, holding the breach finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and noting a likely exception to the economic‑loss (Moorman) doctrine for property damage to other property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welbourne breached duty in performing roof repair (negligence) | Welbourne replaced vents without ice guards; that choice led to subsequent leak and interior damage; replacement with vents having ice guards cured the problem, so workmanship breached standard of care | Leak was caused by unnatural accumulation of snow/ice and homeowner’s failure to clear roof; no contractual or industry duty required ice guards; workmanship complied with contract and warranty | Court: Finding of breach not against manifest weight—trial court reasonably credited the causal link between vent choice (no ice guards) and subsequent leak |
| Whether the informal bench procedure or court’s use of its own common knowledge was improper | State Farm proceeded under court’s announced Rule 286(b) procedure; evidence and written statements were considered | Welbourne argued truncated procedure and trial judge’s off‑the‑cuff weather recollection were improper | Court: Use of Rule 286(b) procedure was authorized and parties had notice; factfinder may consider common knowledge/experience, so no error |
| Whether economic‑loss (Moorman) doctrine barred tort recovery for damages to the home interior | State Farm asserted negligence claim for property damage to other property (interior) caused by alleged negligent repair | Welbourne implicitly argued contract/economic loss principles foreclose tort recovery for repair defects | Court: Not necessary to decide fully, but noted an exception to Moorman likely applies where negligent performance causes physical damage to other property, so tort claim can survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd. of Illinois, 191 Ill. 2d 278 (discusses negligence standard of care)
- Bier v. Leanna Lakeside Property Ass'n, 305 Ill. App. 3d 45 (breach of duty is question of fact)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (bench‑trial factual findings reviewed for manifest weight)
- Meyers v. Woods, 374 Ill. App. 3d 440 (same standard of review)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for trial court on credibility/inferences)
- Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 (economic‑loss doctrine limits tort recovery for purely economic loss)
- Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 21 (discusses application/exceptions to Moorman)
- Anderson Elec., Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp., 115 Ill. 2d 146 (economic‑loss doctrine applied to service contracts)