Source: http://www.statutes-of-limitations.com/state/illinois
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:44:13+00:00

Document:
Construction: 10 Years from improvement to real property, but after person had knowledge, 4 Years. 735 I.L.C.S. § 5/13-214.
Products: Shorter of 10 Years from sale date to initial user or 12 Years from delivery to first owner. 735 I.L.C.S. § 5/13-213.
2 Years Medical Malpractice action " whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought in the action, whichever of such date occurs first, but in no event shall such action be brought more than 4 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in such action to have been the cause of such injury or death." 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-212.
Under discovery rule, statute of limitations on patient's medical malpractice claim against his family physician in connection with injuries allegedly resulting from an aborted endoscopic diagnostic procedure to determine whether patient had hepatitis C began to run, at the latest, when patient filed initial malpractice complaint against defendants other than family physician alleging medical negligence in connection with same procedure. Hanks v. Cotler, 355 Ill.Dec. 314 (2011).
Prior knowledge of negligent conduct in surgery which resulted in one type of physical manifestation of injury did not preclude running of separate two-year statute of limitations once physical manifestation of another type of injury was discovered at a later date where no amount of diligent investigation of circumstances at time of discovery of negligence would have revealed the particular breach of duty which ultimately led to subsequent injury and, therefore, claim arising out of subsequent injury was not time barred, even though claim for injuries which occurred immediately after surgery was time barred. Cuerton v. American Hosp. Supply Corp., 136 Ill.App.3d 231 (1985).
If the injury is an aggravation of a physical problem which may naturally develop, absent negligent causes, a plaintiff is not expected to immediately know of either its existence or potential wrongful cause to trigger two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice, and it is manifestly unrealistic and unfair to bar a negligently injured party's cause of action before he has an opportunity to discover that it exists. Clark v. Galen Hosp. Illinois, Inc., 322 Ill.App.3d 64 (2001).
2 Years with Discovery Rule, no action may be commenced after 4 years from act or omission causing injury unless concealment by defendant. Tolls: If plaintiff is under 18, action must be brought within 8 years after date or omission causing injury and never after 22nd birthday.
The statute of limitations starts running “when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused.” It starts to run if plaintiff has sufficient information to put a reasonable person on inquiry to determine whether actionable conduct is involved. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-213/ " the plaintiff may bring an action within 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the personal injury, death or property damage, but in no event shall such action be brought more than 8 years after the date on which such personal injury, death or property damage occurred. In any such case, if the person entitled to bring the action was, at the time the personal injury, death or property damage occurred, under the age of 18 years, or under a legal disability, then the period of limitations does not begin to run until the person attains the age of 18 years, or the disability is removed." Per conversation with attorney, this liberal discovery statute for Illinois begins to run when the plaintiff is put on notice or reasonably should be on notice that the product is causing his injury.
Failure of chemical manufacturers and suppliers to provide safe product or to provide adequate warning of dangers of using product was continuing tort and, therefore, worker's products liability claim against manufacturers and suppliers accrued on date when he last faced chemical exposure, though it was possible that worker knew or should have known earlier that his deteriorating physical condition was or could have been caused by exposure to product. Meadows v. Union Carbide Corp., 710 F.Supp. 1163 (N.D. Ill. 1989).
Illinois “continuing tort” doctrine did not apply to the one-time installation of temporomandibular joint implants, for limitations purposes in products liability actions against supplier of materials used in those implants. Ganousis v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 803 F.Supp. 149 (N.D. Ill.1992).
In cases involving a disease resulting from neglect, negligence or defective product, cause of action accrues and statute of limitations begins to run when diseased party discovered or should have discovered that he is ill as result of some neglect or negligence on part of another party or as result of being wrongfully exposed to a defective product. McDonald v. Reichold Chemicals, Inc., 133 Ill.App.2d 780 (1971).
Two-year limitations period applicable to patient's products liability claim against manufacturer of pain pump installed in her shoulder during orthopedic surgery did not begin to run until patient knew or should have known that the destruction of cartilage in her shoulder joint might have been wrongfully caused by the pain pump, even though patient brought a timely medical malpractice suit against physician who performed the surgery within two years of her injury, where plaintiff did not discover that she might have a products liability claim until years later. Mitsias v. I-Flow Corp. 355 Ill.Dec. 66 (2011).
1 Year libel and slander SOL: 2 years: All others.
Under Illinois law, persons have knowledge that an injury is wrongfully caused, triggering five year limitations period for fraud claims, when they possess enough information about the injury to alert a reasonable person to the need for further inquiries to determine if the cause of the injury is actionable at law. Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 538 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2008).
Under Illinois discovery-rule exception to statute of limitations, plaintiff's mere access to additional information will not, by itself, trigger duty to investigate; rather, such a duty arises only when reasonably prudent person would be put on notice of having been wronged. Kolson v. Vembu, 869 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill.1994).
See specific rules above for products liability and medical malpractice.
Modified comparative negligence rule. Numerous specific rules apply and should be consulted based on amount of recovery.
For infancy (18th birthday), incompetence, and imprisonment, 2 years from removal of disability except in medical malpractice and other actions where specific statutes must be consulted.
Illinois has a comprehensive scheme of statutes controlling damage recoveries that is based upon a number of variables such as the type of action, amount of the award, and date of occurrence.
In Illinois there may also be a claim under the Illinois Survival Act (conscious pain and suffering) and a Special Administrator may not bring that claim. An "Administrator" will have to be appointed to bring both claims. A Special Administrator may bring only the death claim.

References: § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.