notbing more than a large product bolted to the floor. Response at 3. As Smithe points out, this
argument has already been rejected by the Seventh Circuit. See, ¢.g, Garner, 37 F.3d at 267 n.4 (Va
‘product’ under appropriate circumstances can constitute an improvement to real property”), Indeed,
companies that design, manufacture and/or install specialty products oficn are protected by the
Ulinois statute of repose, See, e.g., Gurrison v. Gould, Inc., 36 F.3d 588, 591 1. 3 (7th Cir. 1994),
citing, e.g., Uerriott v, Allied Signal, Inc., 998 F.2d 487 (7th Cir, 1993)(designer, manufacturer and
installer of coal charging machine); Hausman v, Monarch Mach. Tool Co,, 997 F.2d 351 (7th Cit.
1993)(designer, manufacturer and installation supervisor of anneal line for metal coils); Witham v.
Whiting Corp., 975 F.2d 1342 (7th Cir. 1992)(nanufacturer and installation inspector of crane). In
Witham, a specially-designed crane was found to be an improvement to real property, rather than just
a product, because:

{The defendant] did not place the crane into the ‘stream of commerce.” It did not

simply pluck the crane trom its inventory and ship it to Allied. Instead, it specially

manufactured the crane for Allied based on information Allied provided about its

plant.
Witham, 975 F.2d at 1347. Similarly, Smithe specially designed, manufactured and installed the
envelope machine based on Colfax’s specifications. Moreover, Colfax modified its facility to
accommodate the installation of the approximately 12 to 13 ton machine. Based on this record, the
Smithe envelope machine is an improvement to real property under § 13-214(b). See St. Louis, 153
Til.2dat 4-5, 605 N.E.2d at $56-57 (evidence regarding printing press and construction modifications
needed to install it necessary to § 13-214(b) determination).

Nevertheless, Valenzuela claims the court should disregard Seventh Circuit decisions in favor

of Uinois decisions because the Seventh Circuit interprets an improvement to real properly more


1062, 571 N.E.2d 1011, 1015 (ist Dist.1991), ‘The parties do not dispute that Illinois statutes of
limitations apply to Valenzuela’s claim.
TH. Statute of Repose

Smithe asserts Valenzuela’s claims are barred by the ten year period of repose in 735 [LCS
$/13-214 (*§ 13-214"). Section 13-214(b) provides in relevant part:

No action based upon tort, contract or otherwise may be brought against any person

for an act or omission of such petson in the design, planning, supervision,

observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to

real property after 10 ycars have elapsed from the time of such act or omission.
Jt is undisputed that ten years have elapsed since the Smithe envelope machine was designed,
manufactured and installed at Colfax. Rather, the parties dispute whether the machine is an
improvement to property under § 13-214.

An improvement to property is defined as:

{a] valuable addition made to property (usually real estate) or an amelioration in its

condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement, costing Jabor or

capital, and intended to enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for new or

further purposes.
Garner v. Kinnear Mfg. Co., 37 F.3d 263, 267 (7th Cir. 1994), quoting St. Louis v, Rockwell Graphic
Systems, ine., 220 I. App. 3d 704, 709, 581 N.E.2d 93, 96 (1st Dist. 1991), vacated on other
grounds, 153 U).2d 1, 605 N.E.2d 555 (1992). To determine what constitutes an improvement to
real property, the court considers “whether the addition was intended to be permanent or temporary,
whether it became an integral component of the overall system and whether the value and use of the
property was enhanced.” Jd.

Valenzuela does not dispute that the Smithe envelope machine is a permanent, integral and

valuable addition to Colfax’s business of making envelopes. Rather, she claims the machine is



broadly than the Iinois courts, Valenzuela fails to offer any authority supporting her position.
Indeed, the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation of improvement to real property is based on and
consistent with the Ilinois courts’ interpretation. See, e.g., Garrison, 36 F.3d at 591 n. 3, citing, ¢.g.,
Cates v, Hunter Eng'g Co., 205 Ti. App, 3d 387, $63 N.E.2d 1239 (3d Dist. 1990)(defendant who
designed, built and assisted in installing rolling mill insulated by statute); Cross v. Ainsworth Seed
Co,, 199 TILApp.3d 910, 557 N.E.2d 906 (4th Dist. 1990)(manufacturer and installer of conveyer belt
protected by statute). See also St, Louis, 153 T.2d at 5, 605 N.E.2d at 556 (printing press could be
considered improvement to real property under appropriate circumstances). Under both Seventh
Circuit and Ulinois authority, Valenzuela’s claims are barred by the 10 year statute of repose.
CONCLUSION

Smithe is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims advanced by Valenzuela.

September 19, 2003 ENTER:

Ses B. Conlon

United States District Judge

a


fer Form (06797)

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

Name of Assigned Judge Suvanne B. Conlon Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 € 319 DATE 9/19/2003
CASE MARIA VALENZUELA vs. P.L. SMITHE MACHINE CO., INC.
TITLE

[nthe following box (a) indicate the porty filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, detendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly dhe namre
of the mation being presented.{

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(ly a Filed motion of ( use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) Q Answer bricf to motion due____. Reply to answer briefdue__

(4) Q Ruling/Hearingon set for at

(5) a Status hearing{held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on ___—setfor at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference}held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on set for at.

(7) a Tria}{set for/re-set for}on at

(8) oO {Bench/Jury trial] (Hearing) held/continued to_ at

(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs|by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) Cl Local Rule 4i.1 CHFRCP4I(a(t) CO PRCP41(a)(2),

ao [Other docket entry} | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [10-1 } is granted. ENTER

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

ceeprnd B. nbn

diy {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.{

Docwrtient
Number:

No notices required, advised it open court.

10 notices requires
No notices required number of nelices

| Notices mailed by judge's stat. SEP 2 2 2903

Notified connyel by telephone.

aye doveered

WANE wit

snornes

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AC) 450 form.
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

. ey og a
courtroom Palit fb as
cH seputy’s
initials

~*" Date/time received in ~
central Clerks Office mating deputy initis'x



TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THLE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MARIA VALENZUELA,
Plaintiff, No. 03 C319
v. Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge

F.L, SMITHE MACHINE CO., INC.,

RO a

Defendant.
By

MEMORANDUM OPINION _ AND ORDER

Maria Valenzuela (“Valenzuela”) originally filed this action against I'L. Smithe Machine
Company, ine. (“Smithe”) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, claiming negligence, breach
of implied warranty and strict product liability for personal injuries she sustained while working on
a Smithe envelope machine. Smithe properly removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Valenzuela voluntarily dismissed her strict product liability claim. Smithe moves for
summary judgment on Valenzuela’s remaining claims pursuant to Ped. R. Civ. P. 56.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Smithe designs, manufactures
and sells envelope manufacturing machines. In 1984, Smithe designed, manufactured and sold a
rotomatic envelope machine to Colfax Envelope (“Colfax”) for $100,000.

Colfax manufactures envelopes. The Smithe envelope machine was designed to meet
Colfax's specifications. ‘The machine is 29 feet Jong, approximately 7 feet tall at its highest point

and weighs between 24,000 and 26,000 pounds. It is mounted on Jeveling plates on the Colfax shop

a
ws NN


fluor. Colfax modified its facility to accommodate the machine by constructing electrical conduit
for electricity and piping for pneumatic power. The Smithe envelope machine was intended to be
permanent.

Valenzuela worked for Colfax. On December 21, 1996, Valenzucla injured her hand while
working on the Smithe envelope machine. A guard on the Smithe envelope machine would have
prevented the accident.

DISCUSSION
1 Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving papers and affidavits show there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v, Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once a moving party has
met its burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and sct forth specific facts
showing there is a genuine issue for trial, Fed. R.Civ.P, 56(e); Silky. City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 788,
798 (7th Cir.1999), A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nopmoving party.” Anderson y, Liberty Lobhy, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Th. Choice of Law

A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply the choice of law rules of the state
in which it sits. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941), Illinois courts
apply Hlinois statutes of limitations to claims filed in Mlinois, even when Winvis choice of law

principles dictate the application of another state's law. Cox v. Kaufman, 212 [N. App. 3d 1056,