No. 3–09–0501

______________________________________________________________________________ File d March 17, 2010 IN THE A PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2010 WESTFIELD INSURANC E COMPANY ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court a/s/ o Sand rock En terpri ses , Inc ., ) of th e 1 4th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, an Il li nois Corpor ation, d/b/a San

drock ) Whit es ide Co un t y, I llino is Far ms, and GARY L. S ANDR OCK, ) ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) ) No. 08-L-40 BIRK EY’S F ARM

STORE, INC., d/b

/a ) Birk ey’s Co nst ru ct ion E quip ment ) Co mpany, a n Illinois Co rp or at ion, and ) CNH AMERICA, LLC, a Foreign Busi ness ) Co rp or at ion, ) Ho no r ab le ) Jo hn L. H aup t man, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Pla int iff, We st field In su

ra n ce Com pa n y (Westf i el d) , f i l ed a f our th amen ded complai

nt against de f en da n ts Birkey’sFarm

Sto re Inc. (Bi

rke y ’s ), a nd CNH A meri ca , LLC (C

NH ), u nd er a the ory of subr og at ion, seeki

ng dam ages relat ed

to a t ra ct or fire. Defend ant s move d t o d ismi ss se ven o f the eight cou n ts o f th e f our th am en de d c om pl ai n t f or var iou s re aso ns. T he t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he
m oti ons to dis mi ss an d deni ed Westf ie ld’ s request for le ave to fi le a fif t h a men de d c om pl ai n t. We st fie ld ap pe als , ar

gui ng tha t: (1 ) th e tri

al cou rt er red i n d i sm i ss i ng W es tf i el d’ s tort c au se s of
ac ti on agai nst each de fen

dant based upon a

fi ndi ng that the causes of

action were b arred by the
ec o no mic loss do ct rine; ( 2) t he t rial co ur t er re d in dismissingWestf ie ld’ s breach

o f wa rr an t y cla ims2

agains t Bir ke y’s ba se d u po n a find ing t ha t t he wa rr an t ies we r e e ffec t iv ely d isc laime d b y a va lid
wa rra n ty disclai mer; and (3) t he tr ial

cou rt erre d in deny

ing W estfield’s re qu est f or l ea v e to f i l e a f i f th
ame nd ed co mpla int
. We affir m. FA CTS In Janu ar y of 20 06, Sand ro ck E nt er pr ises, Inc ., an Illino is corpo ration doin

g busi ness as Sandr ock Farms, sought to purchase a C ase IH f arm tractor for its farm

in g operations. Sandrock Fa r ms negot iated a purchase thro ugh Birkey ’s si nce Bi rkey’ s was a certif

i ed de aler of

Cas e IH tract ors. Origi

nal ly , SandrockFarms agreed to purchase from Bi rkey’ s a Case IH Model

STX 500 4WD tra cto r that did not incl ude an auto steer system . However, some tim e after the origi

nal negot iations, Bi

rkey’ s contacted Sandrock Farms and i ndicated that it was not able to fi nd a tractor wi th the exact speci

fi cations that

Sa n dr ock Fa rm s s oug h t. Bi rkey’ s told Sandrock Farms f urther that it wasab l e to fi

nd a Cas e IHModel

STX 500 4W D tra ctor with the s am

e or sim il ar speci fi cations b ut wi thextra equipm

ent in the form of an auto steer sys

tem. In Fe

bruary of 2006, Sandrock Far

m s agreed to purchase that tracto r insteadan d n eg oti ate d a

pri ce wi th Bi rk ey ’s of $1 0,7 95 f

or th e a uto steersys t em. Sa nd r o ck Fa r ms to ok d eli very of the t ract or from Birkey’s with the a

uto steer sys

tem al ready i nstalle d. The to tal purchas e price of the tracto r with the auto steer system was $205,000. The tracto r was m

anuf actured by

CNH. Less than a y

ear la ter, in October of 2006, the t ractor caug ht on fi re durin g normal agricul turaluse and was ex tens i ve l y dam aged . San drock f i l ed a c l ai m f or the da mage w i th i ts i ns urer, Westf ie ld, an d W estf i el d p ai d ou t on th e cl ai m . W es tf

i el d l ater broug

ht s ui t un de r a th eory of
su br ogati onagai

nst both Bi

rkey’ s and CN

H. In i ts suit, Westf

ie ld a ll eged both tor t and contract
cau ses o f act ion.3

In No vembe r of

200 7, West field fi

led it s five-co unt or iginal complaint in this ca se in Kane Cou n ty nami ng Birkey’sand Case IH Agricul tur al Equipm

ent, Inc. ( Case IH ), as d efenda nt s. T he origi nal co mplaintal

l eg ed th e f oll owi n g c au se s of

ac ti on : c oun

t I, stri ct prod uc ts li abili ty again st Case IH; coun t II, negligen

ce agains t Case IH; co unt III , negli gence against Birkey’s;cou nt IV, b rea ch of contract agains

t Birkey’s;and count V, breach of warranty of m erchantabil

ity agai nstBi rkey ’s
. W i

th regar d to its tort causeso f ac t io n a ga inst CN H ( co un t s I an d I I ) , We st field merely alleged t hat t he tractori gn

i ted , “res ul ti ng i n th e f i re w hi ch com m un i ca ted to othe r por ti ons of t he [ t ]r act or , c aus ing
sev ereand ex

tensi ve dam age all to the ulti

ma te loss an d dam age o f Wes t fi el d.” Westf ie ld m ade
es se nt ially

that sa me a l l eg ati on wi th re ga rd to i ts to rt cause of action agai nst Bi rkey’ s (count III) but also adde d th

e a l l eg ati on th at “ Sa n dr ock ’s pr ope rty sus t ained fire and fire re late d da mage, including l oss of bus i ne ss i nc ome .” Attached to t he origi

nal compl ai nt (and to most o f the l

ater-fi le d am

ended com

pla in ts) was
a copy of the two-page written purchase order between

Birkey ’s and Sandrock Farms. The purchase order prov

i de d that on

February 15, 200 6, Sand ro ck Fa rms pu rc hase d a ne w Ca se I H S TX 500 4WD tractorwith a

n auto steer system f

rom Bi rkey’ s f or $205,000. Ab out three-fourths of the way down on t he first pag e o f the purchase order, in sm al l pri nt with al l c api tal letter s, was th e f

oll owi n g te xt: “SEL LER AND M ANUF ACTU RER MA KE NO R

EPRESENTATIONS O R WA RRA NTIES, EXPRESS OR IM PLIED (I NCLU DING THE IMPL IED WA RRA NTIES O F MERCHA

NTA BILI TY AND F ITNESS) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ON THE REV ERSE SIDE.” Just bel ow that t ext, in

sm al l pri nt unde r a he adi

ng en titled, “ NOTICE TO PURCHASER,” was addi tional t ext which, among ot her t hings, instr uct ed t he purchaser to read the con tract be f ore h e or she sig ne d it
. T he firs t pa ge o f t he pu r ch as e o r de rwa s s ign ed at t he bo t t o m by so meo ne o n be ha lf4

of Bi rkey ’s(si gna ture unreadab le ) and by

Gary San drock of San drock F arm

s. A bove the si gna ture line in sm al l pri nt was t he t ype wr it t en no t at io n, “[ i]t is u nd er st o o d t ha t t his is t he ent ire ag re ement between the p arti es.” On t he se co nd pa ge ( or po ssibly the r ever se side ) o f the purchase or der , in ap pr oximat ely the midd le o f t he pa ge , wa s t he he ad ing , “WAR RAN T Y, ” in bo ld, all -capi tal l etters, wh

i ch were somewh at l arger than the l etters in t he o t he rt ex t o f t he do cu men t . Sp ec ifica lly with regard to new eq ui pm en t, t he wa rr ant y sect ion st at ed t hat , “[ a] ny warr ant ies pr ovid ed by t he Deal er on an y NEW EQUIPMENT set f

orth on t he r ever se side her eo f shall be given t o P ur chas er by se pa ra te state men t, t he recei pt whereof i

s hereb y a cknowl edged by

Purchaser.” No signatures appear on the second page of the purc

ha se orde r. In February of 2008, CNH f

il ed i ts answer an

d aff irm ative defen ses in response to the origi

nal
com pl ai n t. In i ts pleadi ng, CNH all

eged, among ot her things, that it had be en i ncorrectly sued under t he wrong

na me, C ase IH, and t hat CNH was its a ppr op riat e de signat ion fo r t he pu rp os es o f the inst an t ac t io n. La t er t ha t sa me month, th e K ane Coun ty tri al courtord ered Westfiel

d to fi le a f irst
am ended co mplaint t o c or re ct t he name o f the defend ant fro m Case I H t o C NH. In a ddit ion, t he Kane Coun

ty tri al courtgran

ted Bi rkey ’sl eav

e to fi l e a m otion to dis m i ss c ount IV

of th e c om pl ai n t, al l egi ng th at We stf i eld f ail ed to state a c aus e of

action f or brea ch of c ontract. In Ma r ch o f 2 00 8, We st fie ld file d i t s fir st ame nd ed co mp lain t in Ka ne Co un t y, as it had b een directed to do b y th e K an e C oun ty trial court , t o co rrect the name of the codefendan t from Case IH to CNH. In A pri l of 2008, Birkey ’s f

il ed a m ot ion to transfer the cas e to Whi teside County

based on forum non co nveniens . Later t hat sam e m onth, th e K ane Coun ty tri al court en tered a n orde r, which,5

among ot her things, gr an

ted Bi rk ey ’s moti on to dism i ss cou n t IV of th e f i rs t am en de d c om pl ai n t, w i th l eav e to replead, a

nd g ran ted W estf i eld l eav e to fi l e a s econ d am ended c omp l ai

nt. In Ma y of 20 08 , Westf

i el d f i l ed i ts sec ond a

mended c omp l ai

nt i n K ane Coun ty. The six-co unt sec ond am

en ded com

pl ai n t al l eg ed th e f oll owi n g c au se s of

ac ti on : c oun

t I, s tri ct prod uc ts l i ab i l i ty agains t CN H; co un t I I , ne glig en ce ag ain st CN H; co un t I I I , ne gli ge nce agai nst Bi rkey’ s; count IV, strict pr od uct s liabil

ity aga inst B irke y’s; co unt V, bre ach o f war ranty of m

erchantabil

ity agai nst Bi rkey’ s; an d count VI, breach of warranty of f itnes s f or a part ic

ula rpurpo se against Birkey’s. As f orboth t ort causes of action agains t CN H ( cou n ts I an d I I) a n d th e stri ct prod uc ts l i ab i l i ty ca us e of
ac ti on agai nst Bi rkey’ s (count IV), Westfi el d me rely al le ged t hat t he t ra ct or ignite d, “res ult ing in the f i re whi ch comm unicated to ot her portions of the [t]racto r, causin g severe an

d extensi ve dam age all to t he ult imate lo ss and dam age of Westfi

el d.” Westf

ie ld m ade essen tial ly that sa me a l l eg ati on wi th regar d t o it s neg ligence c aus e o f act ion ag ainst Birk ey’s as w ell (co unt II I) but also add ed t he al l eg ati on that “Sandrock’s property sustai ned f ire an d fi re related dam age, in cludi ng loss o f b

usin ess i nc ome .” Late r t hat same month, Birkey’sf i l ed a m oti on to dis mi ss count IV of the second am ended
co mplaintpur suan

t to se cti on 2 -62 1(b) of

the Code of Civil Pr oc edu re (Co de) (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 621 (b) (West 20 08 ) ) , alle gi ng t ha t di smis sa l o f c o un t I V w as man da t ed be ca us e B ir ke y’ s w as n ot t he
man ufacturer o f the tract or in question and becausethe ma nuf acturer wa s n

am ed i n th e c om pl ai n t, had al ready b een serv

ed, and ha d fi le d an answer i

n the proceedi

ngs. Attached to the motion was t he
cer t ify ingaf f i da vi t of Den nis Joh ns on, the manager of

Bi rkey ’s
. In the af

fi davi t, Jo hns on attest ed that Bi rke y ’s wa s n ot the man uf ac ture r of the tractorin question, thatBi

rke y ’s di d n ot exerc i se

con trol
over th e des i gn

or m an uf ac tur e of th e trac tor, t

h at B ir ke y ’s

di d n ot prov i dean y i ns tructi ons or6

war nings t o t he man ufa ct ur er r eg ar din g a ny alle ge d d efe ct s int he t ra ct or , a nd t hat Birk ey’s had no knowl edge

of a ny al l eged def ects i n the tractor. InJu ly o f 20 08 , t he Ka ne Co un t y t r ial c o ur t en t er ed an o r de rgr an t ing Bir ke y’s mo t ion t o transfer th e c as e to Wh

i tesi de Coun ty. Th e K ane Coun ty tri al court al so gave CNH l

eave to fi le a m oti on to dis mi ss counts I and II of the sec ond am ended com

pla i nt, a l l egi ng th at the c ounts were barred by the ec o no mic lo ss do ct r ine
. T he Ka ne Co un t y t r ial c o ur t no t ed in i ts ord er th at i t wa s n ot making any

ruli ng on Bi rkey’ s pendi

ng m ot ion to dismi

ss. The case w as docketed in W hi teside County l ater t hat mont h. D ur ing

the f oll owi ng m onth, B i rkey ’sf i l ed a m otion to dis m i ss c ount III of t he second am

ended com

pla in t, all egi ng that the cl ai

m was bar re d by t he ec ono mic loss d oc t rine (f ail ed to suf

f i ci en tly al l ege a clai m f or neg l i gen

ce). In October of 2008, pr ior t o a hear ing o n t he pe nding mo t ions t o d ismi ss and wit hou t leave of co ur t , We st field fil

ed a t hird a mended co mplaint. The six-co unt t hird a mended co mplaintal le ged t he sam e causes of

action agai

nst each of

the defe ndan ts as were alle ged i

n the second a

mende d
com pl ai n t. A s to th

e tor t causes of action (counts I through IV), Westfi el d retained the

la nguage noted above ab out the dam age caused b

y the fi re butal so addedan addi

tional paragraph, stating that “the [t ]r ac t o r fi re co mmunicate d t o o t her pr op er t y, including bu t not lim ited t o e xt ra equ ipment added t o t he [ t ]r ac t o r a ft er it s man ufa cture, a l l to the ul tim ate loss a nd d am age of We stf i eld.” Attached to the t hird amended complai nt was a cop y of the pur chase or der and a cop y of a dealer’s in voic e showi

ng that the auto st eer system wa s ad ded t o t he t ra ct or at a co st of $ 10, 795 . T he follow ingmonth, Westfield m oved for, and was g iv en, the requi si te leav e to fil e i ts third am

ended
co mpla i n t. A f ter b ei n g g i v en l ea v e, W estf i el d p rop erl y re f i l ed th e th i rd am en de d c om pl ai n t i n Novem ber of 2008. In De cem be r of 200 8, B i rke y ’s f i l ed a c om bi ne d m oti on to d i sm i ss cou nts III th roug h V I of7

t he thi rd a men de d c om pl ai nt. In the f i rs t porti on of i ts m oti on, Bi rke y ’s move d pu

rs ua nt to s ec ti on 2-615 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2008) ) to dism iss the tort causes of action fi led agai nst it i n the thi rd am ended c omp l ai

nt (coun ts III an d IV), alle gin g t ha t We st field ha d fa iled t o su fficie nt ly sta te a c au se o f ac t io n in t o r t du e t o t he ap plic at io n o f t he ec o no mic loss doctr in e to t he tort causes of act ion. In

the se con d por ti on of i ts m oti on, Bi rke y ’s mad e a n a ddi ti ona l moti on t o d ismi ss co unt IVof the thi

rd amen ded com pl ai nt b as ed upon the appl i ca ti on of se cti on 2 -62 1(b) of

t he Co de. And fina lly, in th e th i rd pa rt of i ts m oti on , B i rk ey ’s mov ed pu rs ua n t to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2- 619(a)( 9) (West 20 08)) t o dismi ss the breach of warranty causes o f a ction f il ed agains t it i n the thi rd amen ded com pl ai n t (c oun ts V and VI), alle gin

g that t he di sclai

me r of warrantie s contain ed in the p ur chas e o rd er ser ved a s o t her affirmative mat t er , w hi c h com ple tely barred Westfiel d’s wa rra n ty cl ai m s. A ttach ed to Bi rk ey ’s m oti on to dism iss, am ong ot her things, was a copy of the af fi davi t o f Den ni s Johns on, which h

ad been previously

fi le d re lative t o t he sec t ion 2 -6 21( b)
argu men t. That sam

e m onth, CNH f

i l ed a m oti on of i ts own pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code to di sm i ss th e tort ca us esof ac ti on th at w er e f

i l ed ag ai n st i t i n th e th i rd am en de d c om pl ai n t (c oun ts I and II), alleging t hat West field had failed t o s ufficiently st at e a c aus e o f act ion in t or t due t o t he appl i ca ti on of the economi

c l oss doctr in

e. Westf ie ld f il ed responsesoppo sin

g the motions to dism

iss and also fil

ed a mot ion t o s t rike Jo hnso n’s affidavit as be ing impro per . D efenda nt s filed res po nsive ple ad in gs. In s um , a ll o f t he pe nd ing mat t er s r ela t ive t o t he t hir d a men de d c o mp lain t we r e f ul ly, t ho r o ug hly, and ex

tens i ve l y bri ef ed i n the tri al court be f ore the tri al courthe ard

oral arg um en ts on the m atter. A hear ing was held o n t he pe nding mo t ions relati ve to the thi rd am ended c omp l ai

nt i n Jan uary of 2009. After hearing the oral arguments of the att orneys, the tr ial cour t gr anted bot h defen dants’
m oti ons to dis mi ss. The trial

court entered an order: (1) fi ndi ng that the product bargai ned f or was8

a fully integ ra t ed t ra ct or co mplet e wit h t he au to steer system; (2) dism

issi ng counts I a nd II against CNH wit hou t pr ejudice pur sua nt to section 2-615 of the C ode and the economi c l oss doctr in

e; (3) dismissing

count III o f the thi

rd amen ded co mplaint ag ainst Birk ey’s wit hou t pr ejudice pur sua nt to se cti on 2-615 of the Code and the econom ic loss doctrin

e; (4) di sm

i ss i ng count IV of

the th i rd
am ended co mplaint ag ainst Birk ey’s wit hou t pr ejudice pur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 -621 of the Code; (5) dismissing

counts V and VI of

t he t hird a mended co mplaint ag ainst Birk ey’s wit h pr ejudice pur sua nt to se cti on 2 -61 9 of

t he Co de; a nd ( 6) gr ant ing West field leave wit hin a sp ec ified t ime p er io d t o file a fourth am

ended com

pla in t t o amen d counts I thro ugh IV. In Ma r ch o f 20 09 , We st fie ld f i l ed i ts f our th am en de d c om pl ai n t. Th e e i gh t-c oun t f our th
am ended c om p lai nt alleged the following causes of action: count I , str ict prod ucts liabil ity agai nst CNH; count II, negl

ige nc e agai nst CNH; count III, neglige nce agai nst Bi rkey’ s; count IV, strict pr oducts l i ab i l i ty agains t Birkey’s;cou nt V, breach o f warrant y of m erchant abil

ity against Birkey’s (re pl ed f or p ur pos es of appe al, w i

th the he adi ng ch an ge d to “Bre ac h of

Exp re ss War ra nt y”); co unt VI, bre ach of

wa rra nty of f i tne ss f or a p arti cul ar p urp ose ag ai ns t Bi rke y ’s (re pled f or pu rpos esof appe al ); co unt VI I, bre ach o f expr ess w ar ra nt y (t he manufact ur er ’s wa rr ant y given by CNH) against Birkey s; and co unt VI II, breach o f express warr anty (t he manuf act urer ’s war ra nt y given by CNH) agains t CNH. We stf

i eld m ade s ev eral

changesi n the f ourth am ended c omp l ai

nt rel ev an t to t he tort causesof ac ti on. Fi

rs t, W es tf i el d a dde d s evera

l pa rag raphs to the i ntr oduc tory porti on of th e f our th
am ended compl ai nt to further establ

is h the n egotiations that

led up to S androck Farms’ purchase of
a tractor wi

th an auto steer s

y stem . We stf

i eld al l eged that: (1)i

n Jan uary o r February

of 2006, Sandrock f arm s had ori gi na l l y ba rgai ne d f or a Cas e IH M odel

STX500 4 WD tra

ctor th at di d n ot in cl ude an auto steer sy

stem , a negotiation w

hich W estfi el d referred to as the origi

nal agreem ent; (2) Sandrock Fa r ms was informed by Birkey’s t hat a mod el matc hingi ts e xa ct spe cif i ca ti ons coul d n ot9

be found, b

ut a model

with s im il ar speci fi cations that al so contained an auto st eer

sy stem wa s avai la ble; (3 ) B i

rk ey ’s con ti n ue d to n eg oti ate wi th Sa n dr ock Fa rm s reg ardi n g th e c ost o f t h e a

uto steersystem; and (4) base d o n informat ion and belief, t he au t o s t eer syst em was add ed t o t he tractor after its origi nal ma nuf acture. And second, W

estfi el d added add itio nal langua ge t o t he allega t ions setf orth i n e ach tort ca us e o f ac t io n ( co un t s I t hr o ug h I V) t o mo r e s pe cific ally descri be the dam

age that was cau sed by

t he de fect ivepr o du ct o rpa r t icu lar de fen da nt ’s ne glig en ce . I n su mmar y, W es t field al le ged t ha t : ( 1) t he t r ac t o rign it ed , r es ult ing in fir e which co mmunicate d t o o t her po rt ions o f the tractorand ca

us ed se v er e a n d e xtensi v e dam ag e a l l to th e ul ti mate loss an d dam age of Westfi

el d; (2) t he trac to r fi

re comm unicated to the auto st eer system, al l to the ulti

ma te loss an d dama ge o f Westf ie ld;(3) the tract or fi

re comm unicated to and d a mag ed an d/ o rde st r o yed o t he rpr o pe r t y, including but not li

mi ted to the cl ot hi

ng worn by

Sandrock empl

oyees; (4) as a resul

t o f the f ire, Sandrock an d it s e mplo yee s lo st t he va lue o f ce r t ain ot her pr op er t y, including bu t not lim ited t o s pent f i re ex tin gui shers and equ

i pm en t, whi ch were co nsumed in their at t empt s t o e xt inguish o r c ont ain the fi re; (5) as a resul

t o f the f ire, San drock sus taine d dam ag es to o ther propert y a nd other damage s including b ut n

ot li m i ted to a l oss of bu si ne ss i nc ome a nd l ost em pl oyeeti me; an d (6 ) as a re sul t of t he fi re, Sandrock em

ploy ees sustai ned per so nal injuries in t heir at t empt s t o e xt inguish t he fire. No ne of the Sa ndr ock em ploye es w

ho al l eged l y were i nj ured or s

uf f ered d am ages as a resu l t of the f i re wer e sp ecifically nam

ed in t he fo ur t h amende d co mplaint o r a dde d as par t ies t o t he litigat ion. Attached i n s upport of the fourt h am

ended complai

nt were various do cuments. The fi rst do cument wa s t he affid av it of G ar y L. S andr oc k. In his affidavit , S andr oc k at t est ed t hat : ( 1) he was the own er of San drock F arm

s; (2) i n a ppr oxi mate l y Ja nu ary or F eb rua ry of 20 06 , Sa nd r o ck Fa r ms origi na l l y ba rgai ne d wi th Bi rkey ’sf or a Cas e IH M odel

STX500 4WD tractor that did not in cl ude
an au to st eer syst em; (3 ) in t he da ys or wee ks fo llowing t he o r igin al b ar ga in, Bir ke y’s co nt ac t ed him10

orano t her per so n at Sand ro ck Fa rms and indicat ed t hat it w as u nable t o find a t ra ct or wit h t he exact spe cificatio ns and at the pric e origi nal ly agreed; (4) at about t he sam e tim e, Bi rkey’ s told Sandrock Fa r ms that it was abl

e to fin d a Case IH Model

STX 500 4WD tract or with t he same or sim il ar specifi cations b ut with extra equi

pme nt in the form of an auto steersys t em; (5) Birkey ’s conti nued to negotiate wi

th Sandrock

Far ms ove r t he addi

ti ona l cos t of the au to ste er s y stem ; ( 6) a s a

res ul t of t he tractor f

i re, va riousarti cl esof cl ot hi ng worn by

Sandrock empl

oyees we re dama ged or destro ye d; (7) as a re sult of t he tract or fi re, Sandrock and i

ts empl oyees l ost t he val ue o f o t he rce r t ain pr o pe r t y, in cl udin g but not li

mi ted t o s pent fire ext inguisher s and o t he req uip men t , wh ich we r e c o nsu med in atte m pts t o e xt inguish t he fire; (8 ) a s a r esu lt o f the t ra ct or fire, Sand ro ck lo st business income a nd
em ploy ee tim e; an d (9) as a resul

t o f the f ire, San drock empl

oyees sustain ed personal

inju r ies in t he ir atte m pts to ex ti n gui sh th e f i re . Th e s ec on d docu

men t atta ch ed to th e f our th am ended com

pla in t was a copy of the two-page purchase order. The thi rd document attached to t he f ourt h am ende d
com pl ai n t wa s a copy of th e dea l er i n v oi ce sh owi n g th at th e a uto steer sys

tem was adde d

at a co st of $ 10, 795 . T he fo ur t h do cument attachedt o t he fo ur t h a men de d c o mpla int wa s a se r ies o f r ep air orderssh owi ng tha t Bi rke y ’s ha d don e vari ousrep ai r wor k on the tractorafter i

t had been purchased by Sandrock Farms and b efore the f ire. A nd f in al ly , the fifth docu

m en t atta ch ed to th e f our th
am ended c omp l ai

nt wa s a c opy

of the m an uf acturer’s(CNH ’s ) warra

nty on the tractor. Laterthat same m

ont h (March o f 2009), Birkey’sfi le d a c om b i n ed m oti on to dism i ss cou n ts III through VI of the fourth am ended compl ai nt. In the fi

rst por tion of i

ts motion, Bi

rkey’ s m oved pur sua nt to sec t ion 2 -6 15 o f the Co de t o d ismi ss t he t or t cau ses o f act ion filed ag ainst it in t he f our th
am ended compl ai nt (counts III and IV), all egi ng that W estf i el d h ad f ai l ed to suff ici ently stat e a cause of ac ti on i n tort d ue to the appli cation of the eco nomi c loss doctri

ne . Al terna tiv el y , i f the tri al court fou nd that some of the l

osses al le ged by Westf ie ld i n the fou rt h a men

de d c om pl ai nt were not11

ec o no mic losses , Birkey ’s ass erted t hat dismissal of t he tort c au se s of ac ti on wa s sti l l pr ope r a s to those loss es p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 -6 19 o f the Co de be cau se Wes t field and Ga ry Sa nd r o ck ( t he o nly ot her nam ed pl ai ntif f) di d not have standi

ng to brin g cl ai ms on beh al f of Sandrock Farms’ em

ploy ees and be ca us e a ny su ch pe r so na l injur y cla ims were tim e barred. Bi

rkey’ s asked that the trial

cou rt to dism iss th e tor t cl ai m s a gai n st i t wi th pr ej udi ce . In

th e s ec on d p orti

on of i ts m oti on, Bi rkey’ s m ade
an addi ti ona l moti on to d

i sm i ss cou nt IV of the fourth am

ended com

pla in t with prej udic e based

upon t he ap plic at io n o f se ct io n 2
- 62 1( b) o f t he Co de
. I n t he t hir d p ar t o f it s mo t io n, Bir ke y’s mo ve d pur sua nt to se cti

on 2-619(a)(9) of the Code to dism is s wi th prejudi ce the breach

of warranty

causes of ac ti on f i l ed ag ai n st i t i n th e f our th am en de d c om pl ai n t (c oun ts V, VI , a nd VI I) , a lleging t hat t he dis cl ai me rof warranti es contain

ed i n the p urc hase order served as ot her af fi rmati ve m atter , which
co mple t ely

barred We stfiel d’s warranty cl ai ms . Attached to Bi

rkey’ s m ot ion to dismi

ss, were vari

ous supp ortin g docum en ts. On the same date that Birkey ’s m ot ion to dismi

ss wa s f i l ed , W es tf

i el d f i l ed a re que st f

orleave to fil e a fifth a mended co mplaint. In t he r eq ue st fo r le ave, Westfi el d in dic ated that it had
comm uni catedwi th the attorn ey s f orBi rkey’ s and f

or CNH and was n

ot if ie d that Birkey ’s an

d CNH
wo uld be o bject ingto th e f our th am en de d c om pl ai n t. W estf i el d s tate d f ur th er th at af ter th e f our th
am ended compl ai nt was f il ed, it had l

earned through conve

rsations wi

th fact wi tnesses at Sandrock Fa r ms that the tracto r fi

re destroyed addi

tional “other propert y”

in the form of vari ous tract or p arts, such as air filter s, o il f

ilter s, a nd eng ine and o t her fluids. We st field req ues t ed t hat it be allo we d t o file
a fif t h amende d co mplaint so t hat it co uld ad d an a ddit ional pa ra gr aph t o id ent ify damag es in t he f

orm of “other propert y”

to the various t r ac t o rpa r t s t ha t we r e d es t r o yed in t he fire
. At so me po int in t he pro ceedings, a

copy of the proposed

f i f th am ended c omp l ai

nt wa s m ade p art of th

e tri al court record for the trial

court to consider in

deci din g whether to grant Westfiel d’s request f or leave to am end.12

In add itio n, on

the sa me d ateasthe

othe r two f i l i ng s, C NH f i l ed a m oti on p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 2-619(a)(9) of

th e C ode to dism i ss th e tor t ca us es of ac ti on th at w er e f

i l ed ag ai n st i t i n th e f our th
am ended compl ai nt (counts I and II), all egi ng th at West field’s t or t claims wer e bar re d by t he
ec on om i c l oss doc tri n e. CN H a sk ed th e tr i al cou rt to d i sm i ss cou n ts I a n d I I w i th pr ej udi ce an d to enter sanctions aga in st W

estf i el d f or f i l i n g f ri v ol ous pl eadi n gs . A s d

i d B i rk ey ’s i n i ts m oti on s to dism iss, CNH as serted that the l osse s cl ai med b y We stf i eld were ei ther e conom

i c losse s or were losses f or wh i ch W es tf i el d had no a bi l i ty to rec ove

r, e i the r due to lack o f sta nd ing o r be cau se t he clai ms were tim

e barred. CNH at tached various suppo rting documents to its m ot ion to dismi

ss. We st field fil

ed r esp ons es o ppo sing t he mot ions t o d ismi ss, and d efenda nt s filed res po nsive ple adi ngso pp o sing We st field ’s r eq ue st fo rlea ve t o file i ts f i f th am ended c omp l ai

nt. In su m , al l of t he pend ing mat t er s re lative t o t he fo ur t h amende d co mplaintand t he r equ est for leave t o file t he fifth
am ended com pl ai nt were fully

, t hor ou ghly, and ext ensively briefed in t he t rial co ur t befo re t he trial court he ard oral

argum en ts on the m

atter. In Ma y of 20 09, a hea ring was held o n t he pe nding mo t ions relati ve to the fourth amen

ded compl ai n t, t he r equ est for sanc t ions, and t he r equ est for leave t o file t he fifth amend ed c omp laint
. Afte r he ar ingt he o ra l arg ument s o f the at t or neys, t he trial court entered an order that: (1) gr anted CNH’s motion to dism

is s wi th prejudi ce count s I and II of the f

ourt h am ended com

pla in t; (2) granted Birkey’smoti on

to di sm i ss w i th pre j udice c ounts II I th

rough VI I of th e f our th am en de d c om pl ai n t; (3) denied Westfi

eld’s requestf

orlea ve t o file a fift h a men de d c o mpla int ; a nd ( 4) mad e a Su pr eme CourtRul e 3 04( a) ( 210

Ill . 2d R. 3 04( a)) f

i nd i ng tha t the re wasno jus t rea son

to del ay enfo rc ement or appea l of the tri al

court’s orders. On the record, t he trial

co ur t was ver y spec ifi

c and clear as t o t he r eas ons for its r ulings. The trial court stated:13 “ W i th regar d to CNH’ s m

otion to dis m i ss C ounts I a

nd I I o f t he Pla intif

f’s Fo ur th Amended Co mplaint, t he Co ur t ru les as fo llows. No . 1 , P laint if f s eek s recovery of a n eco nomic lo ss u nd er a tor t t heo ry; t her efo re , t he Mo rmo n [ sic ] Do ct rine applies. Al

though t he r e a r e t hr ee ex ce pt io ns t o t he ap plic at io n o f t his Doctr in e, o nly o ne is ap plica ble in t his c as e, name ly whe re Pla int iff s sustain ed dam age, i. e., pers ona

l i njury or prope rty

da mag e to other prope

rty res ul ti ng f rom sudden or dangerous occurrence. No. 3 [ sic ] , th e ‘ prod

uc ts b arg ai

ne d f or’ approa

ch i s th e l aw i n I l l i noi s f or de t er minin g w ha t co ns t it ut es o t he rpr o pe r t y. No. 4, th e p rod uc t i n th i s c as e is th

e f ul l y i n teg ra ted tra ctor com pl ete wi th
au to steercom

ponent. Dam

ages to t hi s product is what the Plai ntif f s eeks to reco ver in tort. In addition, loss of em ployee ti me an d loss o f bu sine ss inc o me a r e e co no mic losses an d, t h er ef ore , not other

pr ope rty . D am ag e to emp lo ye e c l othi

ng an d to a spe nt f i re extingui sher in

cidental [sic] to t he loss of

the tractor an

d i s, th ere f ore, not ot her pr o pe r t y. Ac cordi

ngl y , Pl ai ntif f s’ recovery

in to rt is barr ed by t he Mo rmo n [ sic ] Do ct rine . F ur t her mo re , t he P laint iff lacks st anding to recover dama ge to S androck empl oyees’ clothin

g, perso nal

in juries, spent fire exti

nguis h er s, lo ss of busi

ness in come an d lost em ploy ee tim e. Rec overy fo r p er so nal inju rie s– fi

na lly reco very for perso nal i njuries, I’m fi ndi ng tim e barred. CNH’s motion to dism

iss pursuant to 619 is granted. Co unts I and II are dis mi ssed wi th prejudi ce. Birkey’smotion to dism

is s Counts III, IV, V, VI , a n d V II of Pl ai n ti f f ’s Fo ur th14

Am ended Compl ai nt, the Court fi

ndsas f oll ows . Al l

ei gh t [ sic ] o f the abo ve fi

ndi ngs are incorpor ated into t hese f in din gs. Defend ant is not t he man

uf acturer of th

e tractor. Def

endan t is a di stri butor. CNH is the m

anufacturer, and Co unts have been all eged against

t hat Defend ant who hasful ly partici pated in this li tigation. Pl

ai ntif f h as al le ged no facts wh

ic h would m

ake 735 ILCS 5/2-621 in

applic abl e. As to the b

reach of warra nty coun ts, the UCC ob

vi ousl y appl i es. Plai ntif fs’ t he ory th at th e D ef en da n t i s b oun d b y a m an uf ac tur er ’s wa rra n ty i s wi th out m eri t, pa r t icu lar ly

in li ght of t he exp re ss d isclaimer fou nd o n t he pu rc hase or der bet wee n t he Pla int iff and Bi rkey’ s. Bi

rkey’ s m ot ion to dismi

ss i s granted. Counts III, I V, V, VI and VII are di sm

is sed wi th prejudi ce. CNH’s m ot ion f or sanctions pursuan

t t o Rule 137 den

ie d. Pl ai ntif f s’ motion f or le av e to fi

l e Fi f th A mended C omp l ai

nt deni ed.” As a r esu lt o f the t rial co ur t ’s r uling, t he o nly count of t he fo ur t h amende d co mplaint
rem ai ni ng was c ount VIII, W es tf i el d’ s c au se of ac ti on a gai ns t CNH f or brea ch of ex pr es s w ar ra n ty (t he ma nuf acturer’s warranty). As

in dic ated above, despi

te the exi stence of t hat re maining claim, the trial court entered

an order pur sua

nt to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 304 (a) tha

t therewa s n

o j us t re as on

to del ay enfo rc ement or app eal o f its r ulings. Tha t or der was ent er ed w itho ut objec t ion fro m any of t he parties. W

estf i eld sub seq

uen tly f i l ed th e i nstant ap peal
. AN AL YSIS On app eal, West field arg ues t hat t he tria l courterred

i n d i sm i ss i ng i ts tort c au se s of

ac ti on agains t each def endan t, co unts I through IV of t he fou rt h amende d co mplaint, base d up on a finding tha t the ca us esof action we

re b arred by the e conom

i c loss doc trin

e. Sp ec i f i ca l l y , Westf i el d a ss er ts1 De f en da n ts a rerepr es en

ted b y se pa ra te a ttorn ey s on appe al an d h av e f i l ed se pa ra te appe l l ate b rief s. How ev

er , to th e exten t th at th ei r a rgum en ts a resi m i l ar , w e wi l l

si m pl y re f er to those ar guments as bei

ng m ade by defendan ts. 15 that its f ourt h am ended compl ai nt suff ic ie ntly al le ged and estab li

shed that the f

ire ca used da mag e to “other pr o pe r t y” in

addition to t he tract or itself, so as to prevent t he appli cation of the eco nomi

c loss doctri ne to its tortca us es o f ac t io n. We st field co nt en ds t ha t o ne su ch ex amp le o f “o t he rpr o pe r t y” that wa s dam

ag ed i n th e f i re wasthe au to ste er s y stem on the tractorand con

tend s f urthe r that the re were addi tion al i tem s of “oth er property”

that we re dam aged as w el l
. De f en da n ts argu e that the t rial court ’s rulin g w as pr o pe ran d s ho uld be af fi rmed. 1 De f

en da n ts ass ertthat t he f

ourt h am ended co mplaint failed t o r emove t his case fro m the a pplicat ion o f the
ec o no mic loss do ct rine in three respects: (1) the auto steer sys tem waspar t of t he t ra ct or itse lf and
was not “ other prope

rty” f or purpose s of

the property

-d am age except ion;(2) certain other losse s were incident al to t he dam

age to t he tractor itsel

f an d al so cannot be consi

deredothe

r prope rty f or t he pu rp o se s o f t he e xce pt io n; a nd ( 3) eve n if t he lo ss es su ffe re d q ua lifi ed aspe rs ona

l i njury or dam ag e t o “othe

r property

” so as to in voke the exc eption to the doc trin e, Westf i eld can not ass ert those l osse s b eca

use i t has no stan di ng to do so or b eca

use the l osse s are tim e b arred
. Wh en a tri al courtrul esupon a motion to dism

iss a com plai nt either for failure to st ate a cause of action (735 I LCS 5/2-615 (West 2008)) or because the cl ai ms rais ed in the compl

ai nt are barred by ot her af fi rmati ve m atter that avoids the l

egal eff ect of or defeats the cl ai m (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (a)(9 ) (West 200 8) ), it must inter pr et all of t he plea dings a nd t he su pp o r t ing do cu men t s in t he lig ht mo st fa vo r ab le t o t he no nmo vin g p ar t y. In re C hi cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d 179, 189, 680 N.E.2d 265, 270 ( 1997). Such motions to dis mi ss sh ould be granted only

if the pla in t iff can16

pr ove no se t o f fac t s t ha t wo uld supp ort a caus e of action. In

re C hi cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 17 6 I ll. 2d at 189, 680 N.E.2d at 270 . A tri al cou rt’ s g ran t of a m oti on to d i sm i ss pur suan t to ei the r s ec ti on 2-615 or s ec ti on

2- 61 9 of th e Code is s ubj ect to a de novo stan dard of revi ew on

appe al
. In re Ch i cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d at 189, 680 N. E.2d at 270. Pu rsu ant to the economi

c l oss doctr in

e, a product s lia

bi li ty plai ntif f can not recover fo rso lely
econ omi c loss un der the tort theori es of

stri ct l i ab i l i

ty, n egl i gen ce, or i nn ocen t mi sreprese ntation. Moorman Ma nuf ac turi ng Co. v . Na

ti ona l Tan k C o. , 91 Ill . 2d 69, 91, 435 N.E.2d 443, 453 (1 982); Tr ans St at es Airlines v. Pratt & W hi tney Canada, In

c. , 177 Ill . 2d 21, 29, 682 N.E .2d45, 49 ( 1997) ; Fi rst Mi dw es t Ba nk, N. A . v . Stewa

rt Ti tl e G ua ran ty Co. , 21 8 I ll. 2d 326, 337, 843 N.E.2d 327, 333 (2006 ); Loman

v. Freem an , 229 Ill . 2d104, 10 9-10, 8 90 N.E.2 d 446, 4 51 (20 08). Econo mi c loss hasbeen defi ned as damag es fo r inad equ at e value ; t he co st of r epa ir o r r eplac ement of t he de fect ive pr oduct; th e c on se qu en

t l oss of pr ofi

ts, without any cl

ai m of personal in jury or damage to ot her pr o pe r t y; or th

e d i m i n uti on i n v al ue of th e p rod uc t b ec au se

of i ts i n f eri or q ual i ty . Mar s, I nc. v. He r it age Bui lde

rs of Eff in gham , Inc. , 327 Ill . App. 3d 346, 350-51, 763 N.E .2d 428, 434 (20 02)
. The eco nomic lo ss d oc t rine was establ is hed because the court s recogni

zed that to rt law af

forded a remedy fo rlo ss es o cc as io ne d by pers on al i n j uri es or p rop er

ty da mag e a n d w as n ot i n ten de d to
com pen sa te part ies f

or monet ary l

osses suffered as a

resul t o f duties whi

ch we r e o we d t o t he m simp ly
as a resul t o f a contract, losses rel

ated to a purchaser' s di sappoin ted expectations due

t o d et er ior at ion, in ternal breakdown or nonacci

dental causes. See In

re C hi cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 17 6 I ll. 2d at 200, 680 N.E .2d at 275 ; Tyler v. Gibbons , 368 Il l . Ap p. 3d 12 6, 129, 8 57 N.E.2 d 885, 8 88 (20 06). Rather, co nt r ac t law an d t he Un ifo r m Com me rcial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq . (West 2008) ) off

er the appropri ate re me d y f

or economic l

osses occasioned by

dim in is hed com me rcial expe ct at ions not coupled

wi th i nj ury to person or property . In re

Ch i cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 17 6 I ll.17

2d at 200 , 680 N. E.2d at 275. T hus, “the economic-l oss [do ctrine] is f

ounde d on

th e theory that parties to a contract may

al l oca te thei r ri sk s b y agree men t an d do n ot ne ed the sp ec i al prote cti ons of tort la w to r ecover

dam ages caused b

y a breach of contract.” Mars, Inc. , 327 Ill . App. 3d at 351, 763 N.E.2d a t 434. An exce ption t o t he ec o no mic loss doctrin e applie s, however, where the pl ai ntif f h as sustai ned personal inju ry o rpr o pe r t y da mag e r es ult in g f rom a sudd en or dan gerous occurre nc e. Moorman Ma nuf ac turi ng Co. , 91 Ill . 2d at 86, 435 N.E.2d at 450 ; Trans States Ai rli nes , 177 Ill . 2d at 26-27, 682 N.E .2d at 48; Fi

rst Midwest Bank , N .A. , 218 Ill . 2dat 337 , 84 3 N. E. 2d at 333 ; Loman, 22 9 I ll. 2d at 11 0, 890 N .E.2d at 45 1-52. Unde r su ch circ umst ance s, t he ec onom i c l oss doc tri ne doe s n ot bar r ec o ve ry and a p laint iff may r ec o ve rin t o r t fo rso lely e co no mic l osse s. Mars, Inc. , 32 7 I ll. App. 3d at 35 1, 763 N .E.2d at 43 4. Howev er, f or th e ex ce pti on to ap pl y b as ed up on pr ope rty dam age, t he propert y da

ma ged must be pr op er t y ot her t han t he allege dly defect ive product i tself
. Trans States Ai rli nes , 17 7 I l l . 2d

at 4 1-42, 6 82 N.E. 2d at 54
- 55 . T hu s, a d efe ct ive pr o du ct t ha t da mag es o nly it se lf can not be the s ubj ect of a su i t for da mages i n tort. Mars, Inc. , 32 7 Ill . App. 3d at 354, 763 N.E.2d a t 436. A que sti on of ten ari se s, as i n th e p re se n t ca se , a s to wh et he rpr o pe r t y t ha t wa s d ama ge d is t he de fe ct ive pr o du ct it se lf o r“o t he rpr o pe r t y” for purpo ses of the exception to the econo mi c loss doctr in e. In determi

ni ng what constitutes “other pro perty” f or t he purposes of the property-dam age exce pt ion, t he su pr eme co ur t has a do pt ed t he “product bargain ed for” approach. See Tr ans Stat es Ai rli nes , 177 Ill . 2d at 49, 682 N. E.2d at 58. Unde r t hat app ro ach, the suprem e court has recognized that a p rod

uc t an d on e of i ts c om pon en t pa rtsmay con sti tute two s ep arate

product s f

or purpo ses of t he propert y-dam

age exception. See Trans States Ai rli nes , 177 Il

l . 2d at 51 , 682 N .E .2d at 59. Howev er, if the partiesb argai

n ed f or a f ul l y i n teg ra ted pr oduct, the product an

d the com ponent pa rt18

con sti tute one pr od uct and t he ec ono mic loss d oc t rine b ar s a n y re cov er y i n tort f or th e dam ag e to that pro duct. See Trans States Ai rli nes , 177 Il

l . 2d at 50 -51, 68 2 N.E.2d at 58. More over, th e ec o no mic l oss

doc tri ne also bars tort reco ve ry fo ran y t ype o f da mag e t ha t o ne wo uld r ea so na bly expect as a di rect consequence of, or i

nci dental to, the f ail ure of the def ecti ve product. See Tr ans Stat es Ai rli nes , 17 7 I ll. 2d a t 51, 682 N. E. 2d a t 58- 59. The st ar t ing po intin the “product bargain

ed f or” anal y si s i s wi th the contract betwe en

the p arti es. Trans States Ai rli nes , 177 Ill . 2d at 50, 682 N.E.2d a t 58. In the present ca se, in t he f ourt h am ended com

pla in t, Westfiel d al le ged that the auto steer system was

a s ep ara te p roduct f

rom the tracto r itsel

f, i n an attempt t o inv

oke the proper ty-dam

age exce ption to the economi

c l oss doctr in

e. Westf ie ld a ls o att ached

a co py of t he de aler invo ice t o t he
co mplaintsh

owi n g th at a separate price of

$10,795 was ne go t iat ed fo rt he au t o st ee rsys t em a t a t ime after the origi nal negotiations

to ok place. However, vi

ewi ng that evi

dencein the light mo st fav o r ab le to Westf ie ld, that evi

dence sti ll does not establi sh that the auto steer sy stem wa s s ep ara

te or ot her propert y f or purpo ses of the property-dam age ex ce pt io n. T ha t is especial ly true in l igh t o f the f act that t he t r ac t o rwa s p lac ed int o t he st r ea m o f comm erce as one i

ntegrated unit wi

th the auto st eer system i ntact wh en

i t was del i vered to San

drock F arm

s. There i s no i

ndication f

rom the pleadi

ngs that the auto st eer system was added at a later tim

e after San drock F arm

s took del i very of the tractor. Thus, we m

ust con cl ude, a s the

tria l courtdi d, th at the a uto s teer s y stem

wa s n ot othe r prope rty f or purposes of the property-dama ge exception. Nor can we f i nd tha t W es tf i el d’ s a l l eg ati on of addi tional pr operty o r inju ry–a fire ext inguisher , e quip ment, employee clot hing, lo ss o f employee t ime, and
em ploy ee in jury –was su f f i ci en t to tri gge r th e a ppl i ca ti on of t he pr o pe r t y- da mag e ( o rpe r so na l inju ry)
exce pt ion. West field has no st anding to as sert an y cl ai m s of pe rs ona l i njury or prope rty

da mag e on be ha lf of Sa ndr ock em ploye es. Furt hermore, Westfiel d’s allegat ions o f loss o f employee t ime and19

pr oducti v i ty losses are solel y e conomi

c l osses to which

the econo mi

c loss doct rine cl

early applies. See Mars, Inc. , 327 Ill . App. 3d at 350-51, 763 N.E.2d at 434 . And finall y, t he r emaining allegat ions of ot her pr op er t y–a fire e xt inguisher and so me e qu ipme nt –a r e t he ex ac t t ype s o f pr o pe r t y o ne wo uld expect t o be damag ed a s a d irect or incident al co nseq uenc e o f the tract or fi re and are, therefore, also barred by the econ omi c loss doctrin

e. Se e Trans States Ai

rli nes , 177 Ill . 2d at 51, 682 N. E.2d at 58-59. Thus, we a re left w ith t he con cl us i on th at w he n a l l of th e p l eadi n gsan d suppor ti n g docu men ts in t he inst an t ca se ar e v iew ed in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o We st field , We st field st ill can prove no set of f ac ts th at w oul d suppor t a c au se of ac ti on i n tort. The tr

i al cou rt, therefore, properly

dis mi ssed the tortcl ai

ms rais ed by Westf ie ld a gai nst each de fen

dant in its f ourt h am ended com pl ai n t (c oun ts I through IV). See Ch

i cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d at 189, 680 N. E.2d at 270. Havi ng reach ed that concl usi on, we ne ed

not a ddr es s W es tf i el d’ s a l tern ati ve as serti on th at a str i ct prod uc ts l i ab i l i ty cause o f ac t io n c o uld be br ou ght agai nst Bi rkey ’s , ev en

though Bi rkey ’swasnot the m

an uf acturer, because Bi

rkey’ s had s erviced the tracto r num erous t imes and w ou ld have be en aw ar e o f the defec t ive
con di ti on of the tractor. As

prev i ousl y di scu sse d, a

ca us e o f ac t io n fo rst r ict pr o du ct s lia bilit y, a s w ell as any ot her causes

of action i

n tort , would be b arred by the economi

c l oss doctr in

e. A s i ts se con d c onte nti on on a ppe al, Wes t field arg ues t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in dismissing it s bre ach of i m pli ed an d ex pres s wa rran ty c l ai m s ag ai nst Bi rkey ’s(coun

ts V throug

h VII of th e f our th am ended com

pla in t). First, as to its i

mpl ie d warranty cl

ai ms , Westfi

el d asserts that Birkey’s dis cl ai me rof w ar ra nt ies wa s invalid andun en fo r ce ab le b ec au se it wa s no t sig ne d b y Sa nd r o ck Fa r ms and beca use i t was not in com

pli ance wi th UCC requi

remen ts for such di sclai

me rs in that it wa s in conspicuous, am

bi guous, m i sleadi ng, a nd u nc onsc i onab l e. Westf

ie ld a sserts further

t hat even if t he dis cl ai me rwa s va lid, it ha

d n o ef f ec t on certain other warranti es and represe ntations that were m

ade20

t o Sa nd r o ck Fa r ms b y

Bi rk ey ’s . A n d s ec on d, as to i

ts express wa rrant y cl

aim (t he manuf

act urer ’s
wa rra n ty give n b y CNH) , Westfi

eld asserts that when the pleadi ngs are viewed in the l

igh t most fav o r ab le t o it , t he documen ts att ached an

d ma de part of the complai

nt establ is h that Bi rkey’ s was a signa t or y of and par t y to t he manufac t ur er ’s wa rr ant y as t he de aler o f the pr od uct , a ndthus, was boun d by that wa rran ty a s we l l
. Birkey’sargues that the trial court ruli ng waspr op er and sh

oul d b e af f i rm ed . B i rk ey ’s as se rts that the trial

court correct ly

found that i

ts warranty di sclai

me r wa s val id a nd enf orceabl e and was sufficient t o d isclaim any

im plied o r expre ss warr anty. Birkey’s asse rt s fur t her t hat t he plea dings a nd ot her suppo rt ing documents viewed in the li ght most favorable to Westfiel d show t hat Birkey’s dis cl ai me rwas in ful l compl ian ce with the requiremen

ts o f the UCC; that no o ther warr anties o r re pr ese nt at ions were made to Sandrock Farms b y Bi rkey’s, as in

dicated on t he purchase order which refl ects that it is the e

ntire agreem

ent between

the pa rt ies; and that Birke y’s was not bou nd by any
ex pres s wa rran ty g i ven b y the m an uf acturer (CNH). As noted a bove, a tr ial

cou rt ’s rulin g u po n a se ct io n 2
- 61 9 mo t io n t o dis miss is su bj ec t to a de novo stan

dard of revi ew on

appe al
. In re

Ch i cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d at 189, 680 N. E.2d at 27 0. I

n de ci di n g suc h a m oti on , the tr

ial c o ur t mus t in t er pr et all of t he plea dings a nd t he sup po rt ingdo cument s in th e l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the n

onm ovi ng p arty . In

re C hi cago F l ood Li ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d at 189, 680 N. E.2d at 270.

“ [S] ec ti on

2-316 of the Uni

form Comm ercia l C ode (UC C) (810 ILCS 5/2- 316(2) (West 2004) ) requires tha

t all written di scl ai mers of the im

pli ed warrant ies of m

erchantabil

ity or fi tness must be conspicuous.” R.O.W. Wi ndow Co. v. Allm

etal, Inc. , 367 Ill . App. 3d 749, 753, 856 N.E.2d 55, 59 (2006 ). The

rule’s purpos e i s to protect a b uy er fr o m s urpri se. R.O .W . Wi nd ow C o. , 36 7 I ll. App. 3d at 753, 856 N.E. 2d at 5 9. The UCC defin es “conspi cuous” as follows:21 “A term or clause

is conspicuous when

i t i s s o wr

i tten th at a
r ea so na ble pe r so n a ga inst wh o m it is to ope ra te ou gh t to have noticed it
. A pri nted he ad ing in

capi tals (as: NON-NEGOTIAB LE BILL OF LADING) i s c ons

picu ous . La

ng uagei n th e b ody of a fo r m is ‘conspicuous' if it is

in la rger or o ther contrasting type or co lor.” 810 ILCS 5/1-20 1(10) (W

est 200 4). The de ter m i n ati on of wh eth er a w ar ra n ty dis cl ai me ri s c on sp i cuous

i s to b e m

ade b y a c our t. 810 ILCS 5/1-201(10) (West 2008); See R.O .W . W i nd ow C o. , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 753, 856 N.E.2d at 59 . Th e q ue sti on b ef oreth e c our

t i s not whet her the di sclai me r at issue coul

d have been

ma de
m ore conspicuous bu t , r at he r , wh et he rt he dis cla imer at iss ue wa s p r es en t ed in a ma nne rr ea so na bly
su f f i ci en t to dra w a tten ti on to it. See R.O .W . Wi

nd ow C o. , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 754, 856 N.E.2d at 60. T he wa rr ant y disc laimer in t he ins t ant ca se sa t isfies t hat re qu ire ment and wa s s uff icient , therefore, to eff

ecti ve l y di scl ai m both i m pli ed an d ex pres s wa rran tie s. The di scl

ai mer w as pr o minen t ly

place d o n t he fro nt of t he pu rc ha se o rder and was se t o ff under a bol

d li ne i n capi tal l etters and be low the he ad ing , “N OT I CE T O P UR CH AS E R, ” a nd us ed lan gu ag e t ha t sp ec ifica lly referen ced the ter ms “

im pli ed warrant ies of m

erchantabil

ity an d fi tness” and “express ” warranties. The language use d in the disclai mer was clear, d irect, and to the po int, and co ntra ry to Westfiel d’s sug ges t ion, was in no way am bi guous or mis le adi

ng. Al though, admi

tt edl y, the disclai

me r was prin ted in small

pr int, pr int size alone is not dispo sitive of thi s i ssue. See R.O .W . Wi nd owCo. , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 754, 856 N.E .2d at 60. This wa s a bu siness d eal bet wee n so phist icat ed e nt ities a nd there is nothin g about the circum

stanceso f t his case as pl

ed that would suggest that the discl ai me r was unconsci

onabl e. See R.O .W . Wi

nd ow C o. , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 754, 856 N. E . 2d at 60
. E ve n in22

t he li ght most fav

orable to Westf

ie ld, we ca nno t find t ha t t he dis cla imer wa s inv alid o run en fo r ce ab le
or th at t her e is any indicat ion t hat Birk ey’s made any add itio nal pr omises or re pr ese nt at ions t o Sand bro ok Far ms in the na t ur e o f a war ra nt y on t he tract or. T he pu r ch as e o r de rfo rt he t r ac t o rin que st ion, whi

ch was a tt ached to and m

ade a p art of

the compl

ai nt by Westf ie ld, i ndicates as m

uch wh ereit sp ec if

i ca l l y provides that it constitut es the entire agreement between the part ies. Furtherm ore, ev en i f we we re to conclude t hat Birkey’s was so mehow bound by the manufactur er’s express wa rr an t y, a find ing wh ich is no t su pp o r t ed by t he alle ga t io ns r ais ed in t he plea dings o r in t he do cu men t s a t t ac he d, we wo uld st ill have t o r ule in Birk ey’s favo r be cau se, viewing t he allega t ions in t he li ght most fav

orable to Westf

ie ld, we wou ld still

have to fi nd that the expr ess manufacturer ’s warranty was

eff ectivel y di sclai me d. As its final co nt ent ion o n app eal, West field arg ues t hat t he trial cour t er re d i n den y i n g i ts request for l eave to fi

le a fi fth am ended co mplaint. West field asser t s t hat leave t o a mend sho uld have been gr ant ed be cau se t he fifth amend ed c omp laint wo uld have cur ed a ll of the def i ci enci es that were asserted by defenda nt s as t o t he fourth am ended compl ai nt. Westfi

el d asks that we reverse the tri al
cou rt ’s ruli

ng and reman

d this casewi

th i nstructi ons to the

tria l courtto gra

nt W es tf i el d’ s r eq ue st f or l ea v e to f i l e th e f i f th am en de d c om pl ai n t. Defe ndan ts argue that the trial

court ’s den

ia l of Westf ie ld’ s m ot ion f or leave to am end was proper and sh

ould be aff irm ed. Defen

dants assert that leav

e to amend was

co rr ec t ly deni ed because t he proposed

am endm en ts woul d not hav e cure d t he def ects containe d in

the fourth am

ended
com pl ai n t, because Westf

ie ld h ad ample t ime in previo us p leadings t o c or re ct any deficiencies a nd because al

l owi ng W estf i eld to amend i

ts com pl ai nt, y et agai n, w o uld be hig h l

y pr ej udi ci al to def endan ts. In Ill i noi s, c ourts are en cou rag ed to f ree l y an d l i be ral l y al l owamen dmen ts t o pleadin

gs. See23

Lee v. Ch i ca go T ra n si t A uth ori ty , 152 Ill . 2d 432, 467, 605 N.E .2d 493, 508 (1992); 735 ILCS 5/2- 616(a) (West 2008) (pleadi ngs m ay be am ended at an y t im e befo re final j udg ment o n just and
r ea so na ble term s). A

party ’sri ght to am

end pleadi ngs , however, i s n

ot absol ute or un l i m i ted. Lee , 152 I ll. 2d a t 467 , 6 05 N .E .2 d at 508 . T he de cision w het her t o g ra nt leave to am en d a pl eadi n g r ests wi thi n th e s oun d di screti on of the trial

court and wi

ll not be reversed

on a ppe al ab sent a n a bu se of discr et ion. Lee , 152 Ill . 2d at 467, 605 N. E.2d at 508. Some of the f ac t o r s t o be co nsid er ed in det er mini ng whet her t o a llow a mo t ion t o a mend plea dings a re whet her t he amendment would cure
a defec t in the ple adi

ngs, whe ther the ot her party would be prej udic ed or surprised b y the propo sed
am en dm en t, wh ethe r the proposed a

mendm en t is tim el y , and whethe

r there we re p revious opportuni tie s to am end the pl eadi ngs . Lee , 152 Ill . 2d at 467-68, 605 N.E.2d at 508. Having reviewed the record in the present case, we agree wi th defen dants thatthe tri

al court pr o pe r ly de ni ed W es tf i el d’ s r eq ue st f or lea ve to f i l e a f i f th a men de d c om pl ai nt. Con t r ar y t o Westfiel d’s as se r t io n o n a pp ea l, t he pr op os ed a mendment s wo uld no t have cu r ed t he de ficie nc ies in t he ple adi ngs. Addi ng Gary Sandrock an d S an dr ock Fa rm s a s p ar ti es to t he ca se st ill

wo uld no t have giv en We st field st an din g t o maint ain a tort acti on f or person al i nj ury t o an y o t he rSa nd r o ck Fa r ms em ploy ee orto ma

in tain a n action f or damage to that employ

ee’s cl ot hi ng or propert y. See Am

erica n Drug St or es, Inc . v. AT & T Techn ologies , Inc. , 222 Ill . App. 3d 153, 156, 583 N.E.2d 694, 696- 97 (1991) (a cause of action m ust be bas ed

upon an i

nj ury s uff ered by a pl ai ntif f, n ot upon an al

le ged i nj ury suffered by one who is not a par ty t o t he act ion); Wa sh i ngton Court e Condo mi

ni um Associ ation-Four

v. Was hi ngton-Golf

Corp. , 150 Ill . App. 3d 681, 687 , 501 N .E.2d 1290, 1294 (1986) (all

eged personal

in jury to mi nor son possibly

resul ting f rom def ective wi ndows and doors was irre levant to action b efore the court sinc e m in or son was n ev

er made a pa rty to the action). Nor does t he al le gation of addi

tional item s of property that were all egedl y l ocated in the tracto r and dam

aged24

in the fi re remove this case f

rom the appl

ic ation of the ec onomic loss do ct r ine
. All o f t he it ems al le ged we r e e it he rpa r t o f t he t r ac t o rit se lf o rwe r e it ems t ha t we r e in cid en t ally d ama ge d a s a r es ult
o f the fi re. See Trans States Ai

rli nes , 177 Ill . 2d at 51, 682 N. E.2d at 58- 59 ; W ash i n gton Cou rte Condomi ni um Associ ation-Four , 150 Ill . App. 3d at 686-87, 501 N.E .2d at 12 93 -9 4 ( al l eg ed pr operty dam age to i n su l ati on , w al l s, ce i l i n gs , f l oors , a n d e l ec tri ca l outl ets wa s i n ci den tal to de f ec ti ve wi nd ow and do or s and was co nseq uent ial eco nomic lo ss, which wa s bar re d fro m to rt re co ve r y by the
ec o no mic loss do ct rine); Chi cago Heigh

ts Venture v. Dyn

am it Nobel of Am erica , Inc. , 782 F.2d 723, 729-30 (7th Cir. 1986) (a lleged p ro per t y damage t o c eilings and w alls of ap ar t ments and da mag e to bricks o n a pa r t men t bu ilding , wh ich r es ult ed wh en alle ge dly defec tive roofi ng m aterial dis lodged two
se pa ra te tim es, was i nci dental dam age to which

economi c l oss doctr in

e applie d ) ; Mill

er v. Uni ted Stat es Steel Corp. , 90 2 F .2d 57 3, 5 75 -7 6 ( 7th

Ci r. 1 99 0) (e x i ste

n ce of pr ope rty damag e ca use d by defec t ivest eel pa nels, c ons isting of water damage to walls of off ic e bui ldi ng, was i nci dental pr operty dam age and di d not t ake comm

ercia l di sputeouts i deof

t he ec o no mic lo ss do ct r ine , un de rWisc o nsin l aw). Thus, we f

in d that t r ial cou rt did not commi t an abuse o f discretion in deny ing W estfield’s
re qu est f or l ea v e to f i l e a f i f th am en de d c om pl ai n t. For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e affirm the judg ment o f the ci rcuit court o f W

hi teside Co un t y. Af fi rmed. MCDAD E and O’ BRIEN , J. J. c oncu rri ng.