{ "id": 3567700, "name": "NATIONAL WRECKING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN B. COLEMAN et al., Defendants (Heery Program Management, Inc., Defendant-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "National Wrecking Co. v. Coleman", "decision_date": "1985-12-31", "docket_number": "No. 85-1286", "first_page": "979", "last_page": "984", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "139 Ill. App. 3d 979" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "45 A.L.R.2d 1183", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1184-85" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 S. Ct. 491", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 L. Ed. 2d 683", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "464 U.S. 995", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6483937, 6484419, 6484263, 6483786, 6483629, 6484494, 6484047, 6483856, 6484178, 6483507, 6483574, 6483414, 6483711 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/464/0995-08", "/us/464/0995-12", "/us/464/0995-11", "/us/464/0995-06", "/us/464/0995-04", "/us/464/0995-13", "/us/464/0995-09", "/us/464/0995-07", "/us/464/0995-10", "/us/464/0995-02", "/us/464/0995-03", "/us/464/0995-01", "/us/464/0995-05" ] }, { "cite": "336 N.W.2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10672816 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340-41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/336/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N.W.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "796-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Mich. App. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich. App.", "case_ids": [ 2129091 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich-app/57/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 N.E.2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 Mass. 731", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 302819 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/355/0731-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 So. 2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9564108 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/399/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 Cal. Rptr. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "674 P.2d 253", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Cal. 3d 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4471706 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/35/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "702 F.2d 719", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1847959 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "721" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/702/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 N.E .2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 Ill. App. 3d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3564045 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "77-78" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/127/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N.E. 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 Ill. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4785437 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491-92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/266/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. App. 2d 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1584496 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "271" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/119/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S. Ct. 377", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 511", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1017", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6467273, 6467594, 6468137, 6467694, 6467344, 6467190, 6467798, 6467896, 6467417, 6467999 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1017-02", "/us/459/1017-05", "/us/459/1017-10", "/us/459/1017-06", "/us/459/1017-03", "/us/459/1017-01", "/us/459/1017-07", "/us/459/1017-08", "/us/459/1017-04", "/us/459/1017-09" ] }, { "cite": "673 F.2d 951", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1412795 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "955" }, { "page": "955" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/673/0951-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 F. Supp. 820", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3332534 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "834-35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/522/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. App. 3d 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "551 F.2d 156", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 980283 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/551/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 N.E.2d 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2983143 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158-59" }, { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/76/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2586933 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "471-72" }, { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2701020 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1853, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310-11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/75/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "458 N.E.2d 995", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 Ill. App. 3d 773", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3592766 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "776" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/120/0773-01" ] }, { "cite": "413 N.E.2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Ill. App. 3d 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3160096 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "372" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/90/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 N.E.2d 41", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "381 Ill. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2559525 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557" }, { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/381/0549-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 650, "char_count": 11745, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.680898143090741e-07, "percentile": 0.6975431772277071 }, "sha256": "813ddd215361d29a806e214dc27276fa6086f55717bf27e59b5fb612b5e0eadf", "simhash": "1:0d5924bf8d5c9eb7", "word_count": 1862 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:01.821667+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "NATIONAL WRECKING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN B. COLEMAN et al., Defendants (Heery Program Management, Inc., Defendant-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HARTMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff appeals a circuit court order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant and denying plaintiff\u2019s motions to amend its complaint. The issues presented by plaintiff are whether: (1) attorney fees expended in a breach of contract action can be recovered from a third party as damages in an interference with contract action; and (2) the difference between statutory prejudgment interest received from another source and the lost investment value of that money judgment constitutes actual damages and is recoverable in an action for interference with contract.\nPlaintiff, National Wrecking Company (National), contracted with Elston Plaza Associates (Elston) to wreck and clear a property site for the construction of a shopping center. National was to receive $179,000 for its work with periodic payments made as certified by the project architect. National completed the job on February 4, 1983, but there was a dispute as to the resulting elevation of the property. National had previously received periodic payments totaling $77,400 and the architect certified an additional payment of $82,100 upon National\u2019s completion of the job. Due to the elevation dispute, $19,500 was not certified by the architect but was eventually submitted to arbitration in accordance with provisions in the contract. In spite of the certification of the $82,100 by the project architect, Elston withheld payment to National pending resolution of the arbitration. At one point, Elston offered to pay the $82,100 but only in exchange for National\u2019s release of the entire $101,600 lien. This offer, by Elston, was allegedly instigated by defendant Heery Program Management (Heery). Heery was employed by Elston to assist in the development of the shopping center.\nOn August 1, 1983, National sued Elston and Heery. Count I, against Elston, was for damages of $82,100 for breach of contract and count II, against Heery, was for $82,100 and punitive damages in an interference with contract action.\nOn June 27, 1984, the circuit court granted National\u2019s motion for summary judgment on count I. The court also awarded National 5% statutory prejudgment interest. (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 17, par. 6402.) The $82,100 judgment against Elston was subsequently satisfied. Thereafter, Heery moved for judgment on the pleadings contending that National\u2019s actual damages had been satisfied by Elston and that punitive damages would not lie absent those actual damages. National then moved to amend its complaint to include attorney fees expended in the breach of contract action against Elston as damages against Heery. Subsequently, National moved to further amend its complaint to include as damages against Heery the difference between the market investment value of the improperly withheld $82,100 and the statutory 5% prejudgment interest awarded against Elston.\nAt a hearing on Heery\u2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings and National\u2019s two motions to amend its complaint, the circuit court ruled in Heery\u2019s favor. The court held that attorney fees and lost investment value were not compensable damages in Illinois. Consequently, in the absence of alleged actual damages, the circuit court dismissed National\u2019s complaint with prejudice and granted Heery judgment on the pleadings. National appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.\nInitially, National raises the issue of whether attorney fees properly can be considered as damages against Heery. National specifically seeks to recover attorney fees expended in pursuing its breach of contract action against Elston as damages for Heery.\nIn Illinois, attorney fees are not generally recoverable absent specific contractual or statutory authority. (Ritter v. Ritter (1943), 381 Ill. 549, 557, 46 N.E.2d 41.) This is generally recognized as the \u201cAmerican Rule.\u201d This rule forbids only litigation fees incurred in the action against the tortfeasor. (Sorenson v. Fio Rito (1980), 90 Ill. App. 3d 368, 372, 413 N.E.2d 47.) An exception, however, is recognized in actions for wrongful acts which require litigation with third parties. National claims that this is such a case because it alleges that Heery\u2019s tortious conduct forced National to sue Elston for breach of contract. National has not asserted any claim for attorney fees arising from the action against Heery; rather, it seeks to force Heery to pay the fees it incurred in litigation with Elston, caused by Heery\u2019s wrongful acts.\nOur supreme court has held that \u201cwhere the wrongful acts of a defendant involve the plaintiff in litigation with third parties or place him in such relation with others as to make it necessary to incur expense to protect his interest, the plaintiff can then recover damages against such wrongdoer, measured by the reasonable expenses of such litigation, including attorney fees.\u201d (Ritter v. Ritter (1943), 381 Ill. 549, 554, 46 N.E.2d 41.) To the same effect are two recent appellate court cases, Nalivaika v. Murphy (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 773, 776, 458 N.E.2d 995, and Sorenson v. Fio Rito (1980), 90 111. App. 3d 368, 371-72, 413 N.E.2d 47, and two nineteenth century supreme court cases, Philpot v. Taylor (1874), 75 Ill. 309, and Himes v. Keighblingher (1853), 14 Ill. 469.\nHeery\u2019s reliance primarily upon Kerns v. Engelke (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 154, 390 N.E.2d 859, is misplaced. Kerns involved an indemnity action by a retailer against a manufacturer arising out of a third party\u2019s products liability action. (76 Ill. 2d 154, 158-59, 390 N.E.2d 859.) The supreme court simply ruled that it would not create an indemnity exception to the American Rule when both parties were properly defendants to the third party\u2019s tort action. (Kerns v. Engelke (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 154, 167, 390 N.E.2d 859.) Contrary to Heery\u2019s assertion, Kerns did not revoke the third-party litigation exception to the American Rule in Illinois.\nHeery also relies on a Federal case which applied Illinois law, Garris v. Schwartz (7th Cir. 1977), 551 F.2d 156. The seventh circuit\u2019s application of Illinois law was expressly rejected by the Illinois appellate court in Sorenson v. Fio Rito (1980), 90 Ill. App. 3d 374, 413 N.E.2d 47. In turn, the Sorenson approach was later adopted by a Federal district court in EVRA Corp. v. Swiss Bank Corp. (N.D. Ill. 1981), 522 F. Supp. 820, 834-35, rev\u2019d, on other grounds (1982), 673 F.2d 951, 955, cert, denied (1982), 459 U.S. 1017, 74 L. Ed. 2d 511, 103 S. Ct. 377.\nHeery has attempted to distinguish the present action from the Sorenson and Nalivaika cases by noting that National initiated the breach of contract action against Elston, thereby voluntarily incurring its attorney fees. The plaintiff in Nalivaika incurred its attorney fees defending an action, and the plaintiff in Sorenson incurred its attorney fees outside of court attempting to remedy a tax situation; defendant\u2019s argument is not persuasive, however. There is no reason to premise a recovery on whether expenses were incurred offensively or defensively. In both Philpot and Himes the supreme court expressly rejected the argument that plaintiffs could not recover for expenses incurred in actions which they had initiated against third parties. (Philpot v. Taylor (1874), 75 Ill. 309, 310-11; Himes v. Keighblingher (1853), 14 Ill. 469, 471-72.) We follow their analyses. \u201c[I]t was not for the defendant to dictate what course the plaintiff should take to remedy the evil which had been wrongfully brought upon him, so [long] as the remedy adopted was *** [a] legal one.\u201d Himes v. Keighblingher (1853), 14 Ill. 469, 472.\nThe nature of National\u2019s claimed attorney fees were the \u201cnatural consequence\u201d of the alleged tort. It is implicit that Heery\u2019s alleged interference with National\u2019s contract with Elston would probably result in an ensuing action by National against Elston for the breach of that contract. It would be unrealistic to hold that because National has received satisfaction in its action against Elston, its action against Heery must now fail. Heery\u2019s alleged actions clearly fit the situation, contemplated by Ritter\u2022 and, in accordance with that decision, National\u2019s breach of contract fees were correctly alleged as actual damages against Heery for tortious interference with contract. Plaintiff\u2019s motion to amend its complaint to allege the breach of contract action\u2019s attorney fees as actual damages should have been allowed.\nNational additionally raises the issue of whether the lost investment value of the $82,100 breach by Elston should be assessable against Heery. National contends that \u201cas a natural consequence\u201d of Heery\u2019s allegedly tortious conduct, National was deprived of the use of the $82,100 while Elston was in breach. National recovered the statutory prejudgment interest of 5% from Elston and now seeks the difference between 5% and \u201cmoney market\u201d interest from Heery. National has cited no authority for this proposed recovery other than the general proposition that Heery, as the alleged tortfeasor, is liable for the natural consequences of its action. (Bimba Manufacturing Co. v. Starz Cylinder Co. (1969), 119 Ill. App. 2d 251, 271, 256 N.E.2d 357.) National has attempted to characterize this lost investment value as \u201cdamages\u201d; however, we deem the loss clearly as \u201cinterest on damages,\u201d which is proper only if expressly authorized by statute or agreement. (Geohegan v. Union Elevated R.R. Co. (1915), 266 Ill. 482, 491-92, 107 N.E. 786; Rickman v. Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 75, 77-78, 468 N.E .2d 487.) National has alleged neither statutory nor contractual authority. The circuit court\u2019s denial of National\u2019s motion to amend its complaint to include lost investment value must be affirmed.\nIn summation, the circuit court\u2019s denial of National\u2019s motion to amend its complaint to include lost investment value as damages is affirmed. The circuit court\u2019s denial of National\u2019s motion to amend its complaint to include attorney fees incurred in' its action against Elston is reversed as is the circuit court\u2019s resultant judgment on the pleadings. The case is remanded for trial.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for trial.\nSTAMOS, P.J., and SCARIANO, J., concur.\nOther jurisdictions have adopted plaintiff\u2019s approach in actions for interference with contract. Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. Sharon Steel Corp. (8th Cir. 1983), 702 F.2d 719, 721 (applying Missouri law); Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984), 35 Cal. 3d 498, 505, 674 P.2d 253, 257, 198 Cal. Rptr. 551, 555; Wright v. Nigh (Fla. App. 1981), 399 So. 2d 515, 517; M. F. Roach Co. v. Town of Provincetown, (Mass. 1969), 355 Mass. 731, 733, 247 N.E.2d 377, 378; Dassance v. Nienhuis (1975), 57 Mich. App. 422, 433, 225 N.W.2d 789, 796-97; Blair v. Boulger (N.D. 1983), 336 N.W.2d 337, 340-41, cert, denied (1983), 464 U.S. 995, 78 L. Ed. 2d 683, 104 S. Ct. 491. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 914 (1979); Annot., 45 A.L.R.2d 1183, 1184-85 (1956).\nThe reversal was premised on the inapplicability of consequential damages, not on the district court\u2019s application of Sorenson v. Fio Rito or its ascertainment of those damages. EVRA Corp. v. Swiss Bank Corp. (7th Cir. 1982), 673 F.2d 951, 955, cert, denied (1982), 459 U.S. 1017, 74 L. Ed. 2d 511,103 S. Ct. 377.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HARTMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Greenberger & Kaufmann, of Chicago (Timothy J. Patenode and Patrick S. Munzer, of counsel), for appellant.", "Rivkin, Radler, Dunne & Bayh, of Chicago (Steven R. Merican and Dea S. Rauchwerger, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NATIONAL WRECKING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN B. COLEMAN et al., Defendants (Heery Program Management, Inc., Defendant-Appellee).\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 85-1286\nOpinion filed December 31, 1985.\nGreenberger & Kaufmann, of Chicago (Timothy J. Patenode and Patrick S. Munzer, of counsel), for appellant.\nRivkin, Radler, Dunne & Bayh, of Chicago (Steven R. Merican and Dea S. Rauchwerger, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0979-01", "first_page_order": 1001, "last_page_order": 1006 }