in the fall of nineteen ninety eight the school district was considering a proposal occasion for its new elementary school in but now around the now that one  white to provide the school district with architectural and engineering services including having a design team examined the extent of clear line underneath the proposed site of the school site for suitability of construction and implication on proposed structural systems as far as this investigation white hired an engineering firm hanson engineering the report concluded that quote based on a number of ground subsides offense it can intuitively be concluded that there is a relatively high risk of subsidence in the  report in march of two thousand now the foundation engineering report did not include any of the analysis or study that was included in the original report instead concluded essentially have a language from me but essentially there could be not possessing that earlier report the school district then chose its site for the school as the one it was considering one engaged white and that was that the property immediately adjacent to its old school its existing school  the illinois after the site selection the school district and white entered into another fall the standard agreement with your standard form of protective service agreement and that was signed by the parties in september of two thousand and struction on the school began after the school district then entered into its construction contract with its general contractor for construction which designated white as the architect still having  the hanson report regarding the conclusion that it was likelihood of relatively high risk of subsidence on the site as the construction began and it ended in late summer fall limitations it's certainly part of the standard agreement your honor and if it has been construed as if it applies to to the claim it would do away with the discovery of the clause that's the clause for the commencing with the statute of limitations that simply does not apply to the relationship between the school district and white third the school district under about allegations and significantly the summary just record record shows that material is a fact exists on the question of whether the contract services were in actuality substantially weighted so as to trigger any statute of limitations clause even if why you know the statute of limitations that we're dealing with thirteen to fourteen talks about tort actions for an act or omission so that sounds like the statute of limitations school district the handsome report and according to the statute of limitations four years after that omission you're out of luck well the statute says your honor in section eight to fourteen eight four years after school  these claims and with regard to the reason the school the problem here is that the merger provision the merger provision of the standard green says that with regard to the pre a specific merger falls within the standard agreement referencing the proven right of agreement on which the lines are based does not include within it anything about the statute of limitations agreement and it bases its argument upon article one point four zero point one remit that says this agreement represents the entire an integrated agreement between owner an architect and supersedes all prior negotiations representations are greyman see the the only merger clause within the standard remit relating to the referendum is the dispute resolution it says that the current referendum agreement will be subject to the dispute resolution that's the only cost that therefore merged into the progressive run and that has to be the case of because if you were to conclude as white argue that the integration it to this specific agreement but if it's not then we're left with the conclusion of all that what does it mean and is there an ambiguity and we cited to the case that in the event of an ambiguity it must be read in favor of the school because illinois law even argument or hint of an ambiguity when you look and parse through the sections of the brief you on the sections of the contract all laid out one is left with the conclusion that it's a tangled mess leading to the conclusion that there's an ambiguity here in constant architect no what are you doubting that the contract was clear and on its face and that brings us beyond that there was no merger of it in to the agreement it brings us to t recognition that the trigger for the statute of limitations the trigger in the contract itself was substantial completion and under the terms of the parties agree substantial completion applies not to the between the school district and whacked out between the school district and broken truck the company that actually built the school and interestingly for the first time for the first time we you're referring to the last section of the of the pause that says under no circumstances will white will it run past when white is substantially completed small a small c and the midwest bill or stay some point you raise your honor is exactly on point it was a builder says that in the case of a breach of contract in a case where parents are taking issue with performance under the contract the claim of breach precludes the conclusion that the services have been substantially completed now if you go down through the case and determined that there's been no breach then yes there's been substantial completion but midwest builder stands for the exact proposition that you just raised and referenced that yes here if your arguments are all that's that's public policy determination or honor that respectfully the legislature spoken on but the legislature into fourteen a set is that with regard to these things including omissions as you point out before you later two thousand and six two thousand and nine lawsuit too late it was a wars ations never runs there's a breach of contract the section of limitations never rose if there if there's a question of fact on the issue about whether a partner or should have known about the omission than the statute of limitation runs four years from the time they knew or should have known there's nothing at all unusual about that and when you go for this collapse of occurred twenty years later you still have the right tools assuming that the school district did not know or should not have known about that answer report absolutely absolutely because it would still a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation by concealing facts that section deals with i have a cause of action whatever it may be and the defendant does something thereafter to conceal and then voyaged later amended the statute and an active two thirds are thirteen to fourteen eat and that section once an active over rules and and controls over two or five to all five and that's exactly what the court held in the continental continental insurance case where the court said quote section thirteen to all five has been held in the build up to text engineers and contractors after the passage of thirteen to fourteen because thirteen to fourteen the parts of ukraine and this agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the owner an architect and supersedes all right because she should representations or agreements written or oral and it goes on to list the various documents which one word one agreement to be sure of that paragraph two point eight point three which is the next part of the one forty one makes very clear to us service is identified in two point eight point three point one through two importance all of the services provided under the pier referendum services agreement we have the per one design build construction contractor covered by the terms of the sprint really no ambiguity should be any question that it is one agreement to which as doubts about subsistence they enter into the agreement with the architect to create a referendum agreement directing the architect of recent studies and they don't put the architect doesn't put in any all that we ever had that great it's not really a part of the summary judgment record and to that end what is part of the purchase agreement which is part of the summary judgment record is the hansen report dated march two thousand or twenty third two thousand which says due to the many unknown variables involved in predicting both the chance of subsidence and its possible magnitude it's nearly impossible to quantify the risk involved in building undermine such statutes of limitation commence to run any later than the date when the urtext services are substantially all substantially completed in that sentence is not capitalized so the first  there cannot be a substantial completion of a contract if a contract is reached no actually and that case is  where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the parties agreement this claim reach of contract if true is an impediment to completion there's been the claim here there has been no showing no attempt of showing no suggestion showing that whites and summary judgment that yet made any attempt any completion contractual obligations interestingly we heard some doesn't apply to white because it deals with the contract between the school district and its contractor i'm quoting now from page fourteen and fifteen of white white's agreement is not part of the is cook asked isn't it trouble isn't troubling that they would have had this study done when the school district was concerned with subsides they had a study done and didn't give it to the school district then a year later enter into a contract that says oh by the way the scottish going to start around four years after we're done isn't that probably well of course it's probably because it allows for a situation where party can say i'll agree to do this not do it for our family hold information back and then later rely on after the fact and go she did was to say she can't sue me for fraud because you today it's it's alleged in paragraph one hundred one of the complaint that the report was delivered to white white never contested that issue that summary judgment did not submit any summary judgment evidence no to david saying we didn't have that or because it went under budget ok so is the school district can sit on its complaint on that so to say it's not clear that we have a report maybe someday that issue will come but for today's purposes