{ "id": 5766154, "name": "PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD THOMAS et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Prate Installations, Inc. v. Thomas", "decision_date": "2006-01-24", "docket_number": "No. 2-05-0534", "first_page": "216", "last_page": "219", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "363 Ill. App. 3d 216" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "353 Ill. App. 3d 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3363136 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "636-37", "parenthetical": "section 13 - 206, rather than section 13 - 214, governed claim that the defendants had breached their contract by failing to pay contractor additional compensation" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/353/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 Ill. App. 3d 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 569911 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370", "parenthetical": "\"[u]nder section 13-214(a) the key determination is whether the defendant engaged in the construction activities enumerated under section 13-214(a)\"" }, { "page": "367", "parenthetical": "section 13-214(a) applicable to recover payment for work engendered by the defendant in its capacity as construction supervisor and/or manager" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/325/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 Ill. App. 3d 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5575704 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "228", "parenthetical": "\"plain meaning of section 13- 214 includes a person's 'act or omission' in the construction of an improvement to real property\"" }, { "page": "228" }, { "page": "228" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/341/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 Ill. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5542831 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/114/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5793965 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "734" }, { "page": "735" }, { "page": "735" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/221/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 Ill. App. 3d 867", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5594989 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "868" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/359/0867-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 469, "char_count": 8295, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.114181323100185e-08, "percentile": 0.38101758056164664 }, "sha256": "8eafa798e7068df692a8425628bdec0ac483100514ae38c09ba5437b8964c4fe", "simhash": "1:b6ab85664783546b", "word_count": 1313 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:30.372916+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD THOMAS et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BOWMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, general contractor Prate Installations, Inc., brought suit against defendants, homeowners Richard and Rebecca Thomas. Plaintiff alleged that defendants had failed to pay for the removal and repair of their roof. Defendants moved to dismiss the case under section 2 \u2014 619(a)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(5) (West 2004)), arguing that the action was time-barred. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. We reverse and remand.\nI. BACKGROUND\nPlaintiff filed a two-count complaint on March 1, 2005. The first count, entitled \u201cbreach of contract,\u201d alleged the following. Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the roofing business. On October 19, 2000, the parties entered a written agreement whereby plaintiff was to remove the existing roof on defendants\u2019 residence, supply and install a new shingle roof, install an ice shield and new power fan, provide for a Dumpster, and remove and replace ridge vents. In exchange, defendants promised to pay $8,660. The agreement provided that any past-due balances would be subject to a 2.5% monthly service charge. Plaintiff completed its obligations by October 31, 2000, on which date it first sent defendants an invoice. Although plaintiff subsequently sent defendants numerous copies of the invoice, defendants never paid any of the money due. Plaintiff sought damages consisting of the contract price, service charges, and attorney fees and costs.\nCount II, entitled \u201caccount stated,\u201d alleged that an \u201caccount was stated in writing between\u201d the parties and showed a balance of $8,660 due to plaintiff. It further alleged that despite plaintiff\u2019s numerous demands for payment, defendants had unreasonably and vexatiously refused to pay. In count II, plaintiff sought damages of $8,660 plus costs and prejudgment interest.\nDefendants moved to dismiss the case under section 2 \u2014 619(a)(5) of the Code. They argued that the cause was time-barred because plaintiff had failed to file suit within the four-year limitations period governing the construction of improvements to real property (735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 214(a) (West 2004)). Plaintiffs response to defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss argued that the 10-year limitations period for written contracts applied (735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 206 (West 2004)). Specifically, plaintiff argued that section 13 \u2014 214(a) did not apply because defendants were not engaged in any of the construction-related activities listed in that section. The trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, and this timely appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nWe first address the applicable standard of review. The trial court dismissed the case under section 2 \u2014 619(a)(5) of the Code, which allows for the involuntary dismissal of an action that \u201cwas not commenced within the time limited by law.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(5) (West 2004). Such a dismissal is subject to de novo review. Haber v. Reifsteck, 359 Ill. App. 3d 867, 868 (2005).\nAt issue in this case is which of two limitations periods governs plaintiff\u2019s action. Section 13 \u2014 206 provides a 10-year limitations period for \u201cactions on bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, written leases, written contracts, or other evidences of indebtedness in writing.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 206 (West 2004). Section 13 \u2014 214(a) provides a four-year limitations period for \u201c[a]ctions based upon tort, contract or otherwise against any person for an act or omission of such person in the design, planning, supervision, observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 214(a) (West 2004). This limitations period is measured \u201cfrom the time the person bringing an action, or his or her privity, knew or should reasonably have known of such act or omission.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/13 \u2014 214(a) (West 2004).\nOn appeal, plaintiff argues that section 13 \u2014 214(a) is not applicable to this case because (1) defendants did not have any duties enumerated in the statute in connection with the roofs removal and replacement, and, alternatively (2) plaintiff\u2019s activities constituted maintenance rather than an improvement to real property. We agree with plaintiffs first argument.\nOne of the sponsors of the bill leading to section 13 \u2014 214(a) stated that its purpose was \u201c \u2018to provide some relief for professionals, who are trying to exercise their sound judgment in the design and construction of improvements to real property. \u2019 \u201d Lombard Co. v. Chicago Housing Authority, 221 Ill. App. 3d 730, 734 (1991), quoting 80th Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, May 25, 1979, at 32 (statements of Representative Dunn). However, our supreme court held that section 13 \u2014 214(a) does not exclude persons based upon their status but, rather, protects anyone who engages in the enumerated activities. People ex rel. Skinner v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 252, 261 (1986). Thus, in order for a landowner to be protected by the statute, the \u201clandowner [must] actually engag[e] in the professional planning, supervision or management of a construction project or the construction of an improvement to the property.\u201d Lombard Co., 221 Ill. App. 3d at 735. The statute also protects a landowner who is being sued for failing to engage in an activity enumerated by the statute. Lombard Co., 221 Ill. App. 3d at 735; see also DeMarco v. Ecklund, 341 Ill. App. 3d 225, 228 (2003) (\u201cplain meaning of section 13\u2014 214 includes a person\u2019s \u2018act or omission\u2019 in the construction of an improvement to real property\u201d).\nDefendants argue that \u201c[f]or [section] 13 \u2014 214 to come into play, the action must be based upon \u2018contract\u2019 and, [sic] the construction must be an \u2018enumerated activity\u2019 as set out in the statute.\u201d According to defendants, the \u201cfacts set out in Plaintiffs complaint concede that Prate performed a construction of an improvement to real property by replacement of the damaged roof.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nAs defendants recognize, plaintiff, rather than defendants, arguably engaged in an activity protected by the statute. Defendants are being sued for their alleged failure to pay a bill rather than for their act or omission in the construction of an improvement to property. Thus, defendants are not protected by section 13-214(a). See Blinderman Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 325 Ill. App. 3d 362, 370 (2001) (\u201c[u]nder section 13-214(a) the key determination is whether the defendant engaged in the construction activities enumerated under section 13-214(a)\u201d).\nDefendants cite DeMarco, in which this court stated, \u201cthe court must look to the activity involved and determine whether it is a construction-related activity falling within section 13-214.\u201d DeMarco, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 228. However, we also stated in DeMarco that the landowner must face suit for an act or omission in a construction-related activity in order for section 13 \u2014 214 to come into play. DeMarco, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 228; see also Paschen Contractors, Inc. v. City of Kankakee, 353 Ill. App. 3d 628, 636-37 (2004) (section 13 \u2014 206, rather than section 13 \u2014 214, governed claim that the defendants had breached their contract by failing to pay contractor additional compensation); cf. Blinderman Construction Co., 325 Ill. App. 3d at 367 (section 13-214(a) applicable to recover payment for work engendered by the defendant in its capacity as construction supervisor and/or manager). As defendants are not being sued for their act or omission in a construction-related activity, section 13 \u2014 206\u2019s 10-year limitations period for written contracts applies. Plaintiffs March 1, 2005, complaint was, therefore, timely, and the trial court erred by granting defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Lake County circuit court and remand the cause for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nMcLAREN and KAPALA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BOWMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "John H. Bickley, Jr., of Law Offices of John H. Bickley, Jr., of Waukegan, for appellant.", "Kevin B. Rogers, of Law Offices of Kevin B. Rogers, of Chicago, for appel-lees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD THOMAS et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nSecond District\nNo. 2-05-0534\nOpinion filed January 24, 2006.\nJohn H. Bickley, Jr., of Law Offices of John H. Bickley, Jr., of Waukegan, for appellant.\nKevin B. Rogers, of Law Offices of Kevin B. Rogers, of Chicago, for appel-lees." }, "file_name": "0216-01", "first_page_order": 234, "last_page_order": 237 }