five year later defect was discovered a ten year old car with a defective air conditioner a two and a half year old refrigerator became defective a five year old minivan transmission went defective two year old modular homes r insulated motor home one half year old car that was driven twenty thousand miles and then tweety were brakes filled on the car after seven thousand five hundred miles and that defect was found interesting no in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent abuse pontiac or v further takes the position that the language in the complaint saying it was an unfit merchandise is insufficient however the fourth district court held in provender that the same language is sufficient finally in federal insurance company the court said whether or not a warranty exists and whether a breach of a warranty has performing this type of function these walls are for exteriors the motorhome know what they're doing the force requirement or the goods are not fit for a particular purpose well that's quite apparent the balls western part peeled allowed mo water and and more mold to form and causing worthless motor home and particular purpose of the exchequer sidewalls of the motor home are different from the interior of the cabinet or an inch or wall of a bathroom these must be if the court goes with it has to be for an extra particular purpose there are two different allegations and complaint that are not attacked by pontiac or these affidavit and that is that it was to be used as a mobile office says it's a question of fact for the jury along with janssen with regards to a particular purpose we cite two cases over a one on their case the particular purpose was and salesman told the car dealerships need to reliable car in this case they allege it's wedged in the complaint that they we need it from mobile office and we need it for an outward appearance of our concrete that foundation business and that was that particular purpose it's hard to have an outward appearance of your business to look good when you have a of the motorhome addressing count one the against pontiac r v the product liability count the trial court dismissed and bastion federal court northern district of illinois said the problem is in a products liability suit that we do not know yet which product cause loss here is a component or is the process so you keep in the retailer in gilmore and williams williams central district of illinois federal case the courts stated their reluctance to dismiss non manufacturing defendants addressing count eight against crane products liability which was a lease that was requiring ninety nine point five percent compliance instead it only had ninety four point nine nine five three percent wireman the appellate court argued irv stated that that was close enough chicago title and trust  were forty nine feet separate the gap in continuous land and court said that's close enough and people versus durham where the court said a ten or fifteen dollar fine or credit towards the defendants fine is  will not address and zwick a police officer was not arrived at his property rights where he lost no money therefore it was de minimus none of these cases involve personal injury in the case it was the personal injury or the personal injury that's like five or less you get five last underneath your fingernails you slice your fingers when you try to will wash it when you brush up against that when your eight year old granddaughter goes to help grandpa wash it she cuts two hundred fifty dollars in damages the question for the court this that crane makes is it should be de minimus anything less than a certain dollar amount should be allowed in personal injury action but the new law in the state of illinois and does this whole court wish to cite what dollar amount damages must be alleged to even be able to present a cause of action to the trier of fact addressing count for spy insurance policy or a service contract we cite cummings food which says an agent most obtain the appropriate churns coverage ordered by the customer and by some enterprises the fact here signed all the documents one hundred sixty one thousand are motorhome and this extended warranty all the same time same party signed them we bought the contract and the motor home at the same time for the same hundred sixty one thousand dollars rejected it was the same thing here here's your insurance policy you have it now two and a half years later we've got the holes was free now covered by the policy i'm sorry the policy was cancelled you have to notify him promptly and feel contract under the only service contract that they have to show that they meet all the requirements of the only service contract there and then they're not subject to the only insurance code if they're subject if they want to take protection or trying to protection off one against the other but not both and they don't want either of them to be applied against them or the only service contract act two fifteen i'll see yes one fifty two twenty subsection c a service contract reimbursement insurance company that's heritage and m b a that issues a service contract shall be deemed to have received payment if the service contract holder that so far you paid for the service contract and they it applies to all motor homes delivered to dealers prior to december thirty first two thousand and four the evidence showed and was presented that was delivered pontiac r v on november eighth two thousand  was still dismissed by judge kelly factual data must be liberally construed in favor of the opponents of summary judgment mox says when a contract is subject to more than one interpretation summary judgment is not appropriate fifty five apply in re automobile professionals bankruptcy court person district only two thousand and seven answers that it says provider is a service of a service contract is not subject to the requirements of the only insurance the second hold that service contracts are insurance contracts covered by the owner insurance co it's the defendant's burden to show that they complied with the only service there otherwise the only if the contract provided by pontiac harvey is an insurance policy in section one fifty five applies and plaintiff should have the opportunity to have their day in court if this is not if this is not an insurance policy then the only service contract act applies in this far east pay the premiums and in being in heritage are deemed to have received payment thank you very much on the third and fourth fifth replay if facts are present that show that there is a claim however on both i believe our own five want to see if it is for a particular purpose or product liability claim he made addressed just as a similar argument section one fifty five of the code was originally asserted in count four of their amended complaints it was not asserted in the fifth amended complaint against timing acar v they have made those arguments in their believe that their persuasive that's not really the issue here the only case that they cite bad that deals with this specific issue and they rely on industrial scale service center where  defendant argued that the complaint should be dismissed because they failed to allege defects present at the time of sale and the court in that case was a federal court and it found that it was not necessary that they allege that because of that notice meeting standard there that deals with the service agreement it looks to me from looking up the documents that there was no charge for the service agreement to the consumer t of charge but it's undisputed that time here represented to the buyers that they were getting the service agreement yes and i did time and i believe the facts are that they didn't doubt that it s they were then provided with the sale cardless it wasn't any specific compensation for those services so it was a this is a car what if it was a car this is a low that should be true you really extended warranty on this and were providing that extended worry because you're paying the implication if you're paying year it's included in the price you get an extended warranty is that it is there is a dispute at this point because we're talking about pleading that the extended service agreement into the suit based on their liability for a contract that was fair wasn't there you know at the time they had some sort of relationship  wondering whose response the seller who says you can extend your worry with those who are charging for that extended war because i don't care were separated out it is part of the purchase like i need to know i'm not sure that he didn't even have the contract i mean that you know if you enter into a contract with another party that it doesn't exist because the person who is acting as egypt didn't have the authorit service agreements apply motorhomes delivered before december of two thousand and four and that this particular motorhome was delivered in november of two thousand and four i know it wasn't purchased until february  five then somewhere along the way i know that some document issued saying we're no longer doing the service agreements as of a certain date which was i think december thirtieth perched up trying to purchase this after december thirty first two thousand and costing one hundred a half thousand dollars most people would be interested in so that they're stuck with it after december thirty first doing with with m b a s we need to make sure that things are in place so as of december thirty one doesn't for the customers know that you're in and gaze out ok so that was that was the way things went down at that time so i think that addresses some kind of make a poor make remover at a marshfield store and really suffered some horrible i injuries from the application of this material this is not the same here you disagree with my bambi the implied warranty of merchantability personal injury here it's interesting to my way counsel might have said well you know you really ought to just break through the purview requirement and go directly to crane well actually chair you have to go through three parties not just go through honey after cr at any point in time between the plaintiff's misters as of fieri and crane so that crane if there wasn't fact any particular purpose crane never knew what that particular purpose was make sense all they do is they build the outside wall you never communicate with a party that's claiming the breach of the warranty for i think you had was the other carriers and the other carriers a group of we settled with western general and went on property insurance they settled for ten thousand dollars their policy was totally different they did not cover they gave us m b a heritage policy which is primo policy would cover manufacturing defects and now they say well that it exists here we're going to give you western generals but it doesn't cover manufacturing  is that based upon which would require you to prove what like we rely only yes oh indeed you say that oh yes it is that put it yes if we had louisiana and some's instances have exposed you making this uniform decision so that no matter where you're dealing with whether it's an only sale or a missouri sale or a place else the courts are to find  uniformly so yes you're not bound by out of state decisions we all know that but it's supposed to be taken into consideration when we're talking about the uniform commercial code with regards to the section one fifty five and count for the pontiac or viewpoint out once again that was a judge tell the issue he said don't replete it and i'm not going to go against a trial judge everybody knows what happens when you do that with regards to service screaming you just spoke you had a question about was a cost to it yes there was in the service agreement it explains how the n b a collects the money for it but it was charged for it wasn't a free gift from  with regards to the president of argument by crane once again why should crane benefit from alpha's bankruptcy falcon wasn't bankrupt it would be involved in the suit and it would soon but third party