known of the act or omission giving rise to that claim or does it run from the time of the final completion of the construction project just says the as you well know the statutes  limitations in a one million owners defectives construction claim is not triggered by the final completion of the construction project the legislature did not incorporate final completion into an accrual date for this particular statute of limitations yet nor do i want you to rewrite the statute in a head final completion is a trigger date for the statute of limitations at the later of the time when the owner words pretty knew or should have reasonably known of such act or omission giving rise to explain but not prior to the time of final completion of the construction project statute of limitations yet that's the interpretation there nor do i want you to adopt namely the final completion is a potential trigger for effective construction planning you should not adopt such torch interpretation of a very clear statute in fact surely a case that is that you as a court should not read into exceptions or make conditions to the conflict with the clear  express language that was intended by the general assembly so you should interpret the statute is clearly written isn't and as intended by the general assembly of the state namely that the for your statute of limitations this single endeavor in its exception for defective construction claim but no illinois case has applied the single endeavor exception to a claim for defective position but when you read those two cases those two cases deal with a very fact specific interpretation of when the discovery rules triggered is these actually does clearly written those two cases say you won't find the words a single endeavor anywhere in that phase you won't find the words final completion anywhere in those two cases and those two cases don't cite the senate two g case which forms the basis for their position so the two cases which say proclaiming support their position actually do nothing but support did they do support their position yet they support our position namely that the discovery position relates to a claim for nonpayment not to a claim for defective construction one case it relies upon is the senate to she case was decided payment case at project completion the contractor's going to know whether it's going to get paid for the work that it did to complete that project and no word it's going to know at the end of the project whether it's going to get paid for that single endeavor of completing all of the work within the scope of that particular contract for a construction defect case that cla may arise during the actual construction project work it made arise years sometimes many years after the construction project for that very reason the legislature adopted this discovery rule is four years from when in this case the owner we're talking about they knew were reasonably should have known of the act or room mission for a construction defect claim statute and it held that this senate to showcase was a claim for unpaid contract balances not a claim for improper project supervision and it went on to say therefore it improper supervision claim the act or omission is not a one time affair you're to pay the additional costs associated with job completion therefore braccio that the single endeavor concept does not simply not signing the final completion certificate on the project just as i normally did in this case so if you were to adopt their position and allow owners to manipulate the final completion date contractor's liability would run in perpetuity because just as an order was saying the trigger never started because i never signed off on the completion certificate the blighter me construction case held that the purpose of two cases interpret ing to fourteen they have held that the statute of limitation begins to run when the plaintiffs knew or should have known that the injury was wrongfully caused and when they decided it won't fully cause means that's the time when the reasonable person suspects that a legal duty has been breached that he has absolutely nothing to do w final completion it's when they reach a reasonable person suspect that the legal duty has been breached and with various courts have held is that at that point the person must inquire further is to the existence of the cause of action and at that time the statute of limitations be in surround it does not require actual knowledge of the negligent act or conduct it does not require actual knowledge of the existence of a cause of action and does not require actual knowledge of the full extent of the injury yet that's the position that an organ want you to adopt take that position that the statute of limitations is triggered by final completion which never occurred in their mind what it did is it dismissed them did not exhibit them as parties so the very fact that defective construction pla otherwise for an actor or a wish for construction we're going to construction recruits real estate that is broad enough to encompass a payment dispute regarding construction it's a contract or otherwise regarding construction of a real real estate so clearly it's written broad enough to compass a payment dispute between two parties regarding construction project so council has conceded that these payment disputes fall within the single endeavor doctrine major contract obviously has a lot of different parts and you know in a big project you can have plumbing electrical and dry wall and masonry or in this particular case you've got the excavation of the pits you've got the installation of the grinders you've got the laying of the pipe the answer is yes and if i want to if i can clarify one council argued away what will council argue that you know into the project where they're getting paid or not that's that's not true payments in construction projects are just like the pieces of which they're made you don't wait until the very end you get paid you get paid at various stages struck a project of projects and go on for years and the contractors are doing those jobs plus the wait until the end they get paid they know after the st month after the six month after the nine month that the ten know my point i want to make just this is the statute is written broad enough to encompass pay disputes i knowledge and there are mechanics liens there are other laws and ways to to ensure payment but it's not that you just wait until the end of the job these disputes can come up that even if it's a mechanic's lien if there are other issues contract disputes about what work was done what were shouldn't be done somebody gets kicked off the job these are these can all be payment issues that clearly define or fall under the single payment single endeavor doctrine and those have been applied which we know and sent to jim bergen o'bryant repeatedly in the point i'm trying to because there's a good reason for that we don't want number one to have require multiple different statutes of limitations to have two crew during a project it's it's destructive we don't want one party having to sue another party during the middle of a project with which they're both still working we want to be able to work things out the contract requires that if i'm on a construction project and there's a problem with the installation of the grinder pumps and i say look these were done right i want the party with whom i have a contract with to work on it to fix it to resolve it happens every day in construction projects i want them to work on it to resolve it to correct the problem i don't want to have got to sue them so i did and that's exactly what happened here there were there were problems we acknowledged all the problems early on we brought them to the attention of atlas and other contractors and we asked to get these resolved and there was negotiations and work trying to get them resolved another point that i wanted to point out which i think is very significant cases it particularly instructive for our purposes in this case a complaint case was filed nine years after the project was completed and the problems with the heating system were were readily apparent when the project  began being constructed so we knew there were problems project them being completed for nine years but the bank didn't have sufficient information that the problems were wrongfully cause and what the court talked about was a two prong test to determine one the statute runs one is they knew of an injury they knew early on that the heating system wasn't working properly but they were they didn't know that it was wrongfully cause that when you looked at these cases and not just the south actual bank but also m and s and duster ial  they don't specifically and have a nest of this is that we use the phrase single endeavor they discussed the same principle and that is when you're working with somebody in a construction project you expect them to cure or fix the problem you're working with and you see that every day you identify the problems they need to get this fixed they say ok we're going to fix this you shouldn't be required to set the clock start running to sue them you don't know that that you've been wrong until they refuse or sign off and acknowledge that the project has been completed and never done that now counsel are going to write the very end of his comments that that's that's ridiculous to allow that because communities or owners of projects could or have any deficiencies in your not complaining you said well i'm not going to say it's completed you keep the course wouldn't allow that it would be a fact driven test as to whether there's really a deficiency that precludes the job from being completed is exactly what we have here this job was never completed and the defendants allison hannover don't dispute that they don't dispute that this has never been accepted never been completed in fact there was a mediation conference in this case less than a year before suit was filed they continued to discuss the resolution of this dispute they continued to address problems and whether that was unsuccessful suit was filed so from the time shortly after this project began there were problems different new additional problems kept popping up throughout the project there was interacting between the parties to try and resolve those issues and i'm not and the other owner of a project should not be in a position to have to start filing lawsuits during the project against the contract you do have to continue to work with endeavor doctor now granted it did have to do with with payments but for the reasons i stated that beginning my comments there shouldn't be a distinction between payments and defective construction because the same principle should apply if you've got a long project you don't want to have to make a party start suing someone they have a contract with during the course of the project or you don't want to have them you want you want the parties to work together to try and resolve these issues which is what was happening during this project there w we didn't do that they tried to resolve them no one tried to resolve them saw them and tried to resolve them they were working together as in this is what we want to do we want to encourage the parties to a contract to work together during the project what we don't want to do is to force them to go out and follow lawsuit while the project is still going on as was trying to fix these problems in one was sold and was they were all trying to fix these problems and that's why the project continued next why we didn't terminate the project that's why  the issues continued to accumulate until the point where it's that it's clear that the project was never completed never accept it still to this day this project this is the sewer system does not work and be tried to do was what any reasonable customer in this situation would do is try and resolve trying to work it out we're still on the job we're still working on it we're still trying to do things to work and we shouldn't force them to go out and follow lawsuit when people are trying to work on the project who knows of  requires is the nd prong and that is that it was wrongfully cause and if you look at these cases again listen national bank that part of the prong wasn't made here because we can't know it's wrongfully cause until they stop trying to fix it they have a we're saying judge is that point hadn't come that point had come we're still discovering new defects three and a half years before suit was filed they're still trying to work on the nurse still trying to get them resolved they were trying to fix them and what i'm saying is because we've already recognized the single endeavor dr doctor and under the statute i mean to fourteen i believe when we read literally it applies to issues of payment we've we've acknowledged that as a a file suit against somebody you're working with and having multiple payment deadlines that should apply equally to situations of deficient construction this isn't a this isn't a situation where the job was completely done  about the deficiencies we didn't do anything we sat on our rights and filed suit five years later that's not what happened here the this project continued on for years and years and years with deficiency after deficiency after deficiency and we worked with the contractors to try and resolve those deficiencies and at some point you're right at some point the edges are running but this project has never been completed and what the defendants want to say is hey it's too bad so sad you know it's been more than four years since you st knew we should up but the problem was they were they were working they were appeared to be working on trying to resolve the deficiencies and on and on it went until it got to the point where clearly that wasn't happening filed there was no record of time there was never a gap when we sat back on our rights and didn't do anything we constantly were working on trying to get the issues resolved there was never us a period of time where we accepted the job we thought it was working and didn't do it and that never happened this job has still never been accepted or completed and the defendants don't dispute that all they say is well that's not really fair because you can hold the whole final completion of forever no you can't you think it's a logical rule that makes sense the single endevor makes sense it applies and if you look at the rationale of the week you decision granted it's not binding authority it's persuasive it's two years old it makes perfect sense and it should apply to construction deficiencies as well as payment issues been completed at least we know some of the deficiencies were discovered less than three years before suit was filed so at least to some of the deficiencies the even if you strictly apply the statute there are deficiencies that fall within the four years reason why the illinois records have it have applied is down the single endeavor dockery's could buy by the end of the property even if it's a three year project by the end of that project the contractor knows whether it's going to get paid for all the work he did there for the  extent of the injuries in the water to trigger the statute of limitations and that's what he's trying to say with these and with this one extra problem that they found out about him during the fourteen they didn't know the full extent but that's not the standard the standard as good ones to get eleven that they were claiming that atlas head defaulted under the terms of the project at that time undoubtedly the satchel mutations began to run when you put the bonding company on notice that we are failing to perform together so that you're not hauling off the running off to the courthouse to do that there is a remedy for that situation and inori did neither take the opportunity or veiled self of the opportunity to to enter into a totally agree man and you don't have  trying to claim that you're going to ruin the quality sphere of a construction project by forcing one party or another to run off the courthouse is simply untrue the illinois legislature has given parties for years when you knew were should have no view that this project is fit is finished so they said it was finished in august of two thousand and ten he wanted said the product was finished in two thousand and ten we believe the project was finished in