2011 IL App (1st) 102299
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- United Airlines sued the City of Chicago in two counts, one for declaratory judgment and one for breach of contract, arising from a collision between a United plane and a City truck at O'Hare Airport.
- The contract attached to United's complaint governs airport operations, duties, and insurance, and incorporates applicable federal regulations (FARs).
- The City allegedly breached the contract by allowing a City truck to occupy grass near taxiway A between A11 and A12 without disclosure or proper signaling, causing the collision and damages to United's aircraft and loss of use during repairs.
- United sought damages for aircraft repairs ($1,434,182.98) and lost use, among other contract-based remedies.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing the claim sounded in tort with a one-year limitations period under 8-101, while United argued the contract-based 10-year period in 13-206 applies; the circuit court treated the contract claim as timely under 13-206.
- The trial court certified the question for Rule 308 review, asking whether the one-year Tort Immunity Act period bars a contract-based claim arising from a single event when a written contract claim is also filed within 10 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What limitations period applies to United's breach of contract claim? | United asserts it is a contract claim within 13-206, not subject to 8-101. | City contends the action is a tort-like claim arising from a single event, thus governed by 8-101. | The breach of contract claim is governed by 13-206; 8-101 does not bar it. |
| Is United's claim truly a contract action or a tort action disguised as contract? | The gravamen rests on contractual obligations and their breach. | The underlying incident is a single event causing property damage, typical of tort liability. | The action rests on breach of written contract; contract damages are recoverable under 13-206. |
| Does incorporation of FARs and contract terms make the contract a written contract for limitations purposes? | The contract includes FARs, making essential terms written and ascertainable. | FARs outside the contract could render it oral, potentially limiting to 5 years. | The contract is written; incorporation of FARs satisfies the writing requirement, so the 10-year period applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill.2d 45 (2007) (affects Rule 308 review and interpretation of limitations related to pleadings)
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bowman, 229 Ill.2d 461 (2008) (limits for contract vs. tort actions; gravamen test for limitations)
- Harvest Church of Our Lord v. City of East St. Louis, 407 Ill.App.3d 649 (2011) (section 2-101 exclusion of enumerated exceptions from 8-101)
- Yballe (Madigan ex rel. Department of Healthcare & Family Services v. Yballe), 397 Ill.App.3d 481 (2009) (determine limitations based on injury type rather than pleading title)
- Armstrong v. Guigler, 174 Ill.2d 281 (1996) (contract vs. tort framing; gravamen test for limitations)
- Midland Hotel Corp. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp., 118 Ill.2d 306 (1987) (damages foreseeability and contract breach as basis for contract damages)
- Mars, Inc. v. Heritage Builders of Effingham, Inc., 327 Ill.App.3d 346 (2002) (breach-based damages from special circumstances may be contractual)
- Handtoffski v. Chicago Consolidated Traction Co., 274 Ill. 282 (1916) (tortious breach of implied contract; limitations analysis)