Title: Fattah v. Bim
Citation: 2016 IL 119365
Docket Number: 119365
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: May 19, 2016

Illinois Official Reports 
 
Supreme Court 
 
 
Fattah v. Bim, 2016 IL 119365 
 
 
 
Caption in Supreme 
Court: 
 
JOHN FATTAH, Appellee, v. MIREK BIM et al., Appellants. 
 
 
 
Docket No. 
 
119365 
 
 
 
Filed 
 
 
May 19, 2016 
 
 
 
Decision Under  
Review 
 
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; heard in that 
court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. 
Sanjay T. Tailor, Judge, presiding. 
 
 
Judgment 
Appellate court judgment reversed. 
Circuit court judgment affirmed. 
 
Counsel on 
Appeal 
Shawn M. Doorhy and Trina K. Taylor, of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, 
of Chicago, for appellants. 
 
Daniel J. Voelker and Alexander N. Loftus, of Voelker Litigation 
Group, of Chicago, for appellee. 
 
John P. Cooney and Jeffrey D. Corso, of Cooney Corso & Moynihan, 
LLC, of Downers Grove, for amici curiae Home Builders Association 
of Illinois et al. 
 
 
Digitally signed by 
Reporter of Decisions 
Reason: I attest to the 
accuracy and integrity 
of this document 
Date: 2016.06.24 
09:42:46 -05'00'
 
 
- 2 - 
 
Justices 
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 
Chief Justice Garman and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, 
Karmeier, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
 
 
 
OPINION 
 
¶ 1 
 
In Petersen v. Hubschman Construction Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31 (1979), this court held that, in a 
contract for sale from a builder-vendor to the first purchaser of a newly constructed house, 
there is an implied warranty that the house will be free from latent defects that unreasonably 
interfere with its intended use. We also held that this “implied warranty of habitability” may be 
waived by the purchaser if certain conditions are met. Id. at 43. Three years after Petersen, in 
Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171 (1982), we held, in a case where there was no waiver 
of the implied warranty of habitability by the first purchaser of a house, that the warranty 
should be extended to a second purchaser of the house. 
¶ 2 
 
In this case, we address a question left unanswered by Redarowicz: May the implied 
warranty of habitability be extended to a second purchaser of a house when a valid, 
bargained-for waiver of the warranty was executed between the builder-vendor and the first 
purchaser? For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it may not. 
 
¶ 3 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
¶ 4 
 
Defendant Mirek Bim was the president and owner of Masterklad, Inc., a corporation 
engaged in the business of building houses.1 In 2005, Masterklad began construction of a 
single-family house in Glenview, Illinois. When completed, the house included a patio made 
of paver bricks that extended off the rear of the house. Because the ground underneath the patio 
sloped down as it moved away from the house, dirt and gravel were placed underneath the 
patio to support the bricks and make them level with the rear entrance to the house. A retaining 
wall was built around the patio to contain the fill. 
¶ 5 
 
In 2007, the house was sold by Masterklad to a woman named Beth Lubeck for $1,710,000. 
Attached to the real estate sales contract was a “Waiver and Disclaimer of Implied Warranty of 
Habitability.” In this document, Lubeck “knowingly, voluntarily, fully and forever,” waived 
the implied warranty of habitability in exchange for an express warranty provided by 
Masterklad. The express warranty itself is not included in the record on appeal, but other 
filings of record indicate that this warranty had a term of one year. There is no dispute between 
the parties that Lubeck’s waiver of the implied warranty of habitability in exchange for an 
express, one-year warranty was valid and enforceable, and there is no dispute that Masterklad 
honored the terms of the express warranty while it was in effect. 
¶ 6 
 
In May 2010, Lubeck sold the house to the plaintiff, John Fattah, for $1,050,000. Attached 
to the real estate sales contract was a rider captioned, “ ‘As Is’ Addendum.” This document 
stated that the house was being sold to plaintiff “as is” and that the seller, Lubeck, made no 
                                                 
 
1Defendant Alina Bim is the wife of Mirek Bim. Her relation to Masterklad is not clear from the 
record. 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
representations or warranty to plaintiff regarding the condition of the house. The document 
also indicated that plaintiff had been advised to seek appropriate counsel regarding the risks of 
buying property “as is.” Closing on the sale of the house occurred in November 2010. 
¶ 7 
 
In February 2011, parts of the retaining wall around the rear patio of the house gave way, 
and, as a result, a portion of the patio collapsed. Five months later, in July 2011, plaintiff filed 
a one-count complaint against defendants, in their personal capacities, in the circuit court of 
Cook County. The complaint alleged that an implied warranty of habitability extended from 
defendants to plaintiffs and that defendants had breached this warranty by constructing a patio 
retaining wall that contained latent defects. The complaint sought damages in excess of 
$86,000. Shortly after plaintiff filed his complaint, Masterklad was voluntarily dissolved. 
¶ 8 
 
Defendants initially appeared in the circuit court pro se and provided the court with an 
address for service. After filing an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, defendants hired an attorney 
who prepared a motion for summary judgment. When that motion was denied, counsel 
withdrew. Defendants then filed a substitute appearance pro se with a new, updated address for 
service. 
¶ 9 
 
Following a bench trial, the circuit court found, on the basis of the testimony presented, 
that the patio wall had given way due to latent defects in its construction. Nevertheless, the 
circuit court held that plaintiff could not recover. The court emphasized that Masterklad had 
executed a valid, enforceable waiver of the implied warranty of habitability with Lubeck. 
Noting that no “builder or developer can predict who will buy” a newly constructed house after 
its first purchaser, the circuit court determined that imposing liability on defendants in this case 
would “frustrate the policy favoring the enforcement of knowing waivers” of the implied 
warranty of habitability. The court therefore denied plaintiff relief. 
¶ 10 
 
Plaintiff filed notices of appeal in the circuit and appellate courts. The parties dispute 
whether proof of service on defendants was properly filed or whether defendants were actually 
served with any notice of appeal. Thereafter, various other filings by plaintiff in the appellate 
court were erroneously sent to defendants’ old address rather than the updated service address 
which they had provided. Defendants did not file a brief in the appellate court or otherwise 
appear. 
¶ 11 
 
In the absence of briefing from defendants, the appellate court proceeded under the 
principles of First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 
(1976), and reversed the judgment of the circuit court. 2015 IL App (1st) 140171. Citing to 
Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171 (1982), the appellate court stated that the implied 
warranty of habitability extends from a builder-vendor to a second purchaser of a house, such 
as plaintiff. The appellate court then concluded that Lubeck’s waiver of the implied warranty 
of habitability did not preclude plaintiff’s claim against defendants and, further, that the “as is” 
rider in plaintiff’s contract with Lubeck did not affect any rights plaintiff had against 
defendants. The appellate court therefore held that plaintiff could proceed on his claim for 
breach of the implied warranty of habitability against defendants. The appellate court 
remanded the cause back to the circuit court to determine whether the latent defects in the patio 
wall identified by the circuit court interfered with the reasonably intended use of plaintiff’s 
house and whether those defects had manifested within a reasonable period of time so as to 
come within the scope of the implied warranty of habitability. 2015 IL App (1st) 140171, ¶ 41. 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
¶ 12 
 
We granted defendants’ petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015). 
 
¶ 13 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS 
¶ 14 
 
Defendants raise three arguments before this court: (1) the appellate court erred in holding 
that plaintiff had a cause of action for breach of an implied warranty of habitability; (2) the 
appellate court erred in holding defendants personally liable to plaintiff when Masterklad, a 
corporate entity, was the builder of plaintiff’s house; (3) because of service problems in the 
appellate court, defendants had no meaningful opportunity to participate in the appellate court 
proceedings, and, hence, their due process rights were violated.2 We begin with defendants’ 
first argument. 
¶ 15 
 
The appellate court’s reasoning with respect to the implied warranty of habitability was 
essentially in two steps. First, relying on Redarowicz, the court assumed that the implied 
warranty of habitability extends from a builder-vendor to a second purchaser of a house as a 
matter of course. 2015 IL App (1st) 140171, ¶ 23. Plaintiff was a second purchaser of the house 
at issue, and, therefore, according to the court, the warranty was applicable to him. 
¶ 16 
 
Second, the appellate court concluded that plaintiff never waived any implied warranty of 
habitability. As the appellate court observed, plaintiff never had any written or verbal 
agreement with defendants to waive the warranty, and the “as is” rider in plaintiff’s contract 
with Lubeck had no bearing on plaintiff’s rights with respect to defendants. Id. ¶¶ 28-38. 
Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that plaintiff’s complaint for breach of the implied 
warranty of habitability could proceed. We disagree. 
¶ 17 
 
The appellate court erred in the first step of its analysis by assuming, without discussion, 
that the implied warranty of habitability extends automatically to all second purchasers of a 
house. The implied warranty was extended to a second purchaser in Redarowicz under a 
particular set of facts, where there had been no waiver of the warranty by the first purchaser. It 
is not a given that the implied warranty may be extended to a second purchaser when a waiver 
of the warranty exists. 
¶ 18 
 
Thus, the initial question we must address in this case is whether the implied warranty of 
habitability may be extended to plaintiff in the first place, given that Lubeck executed a valid, 
bargained-for waiver of the warranty. To answer that question, we need to review the reasons 
behind the implied warranty of habitability and why, in Redarowicz, we concluded the 
warranty could be extended to a second purchaser. 
¶ 19 
 
In Petersen v. Hubschman Construction Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31 (1979), this court held that an 
implied warranty of habitability protects the initial purchaser of a new house against latent 
defects that would render the house not reasonably fit for its intended use. Recognition of this 
warranty was justified, the court explained, by the significant changes in the construction 
methods and marketing of new houses that had arisen in the modern era. The court noted that 
many “new houses are, in a sense, now mass produced” and that the buyer often purchases the 
house “from a model home or from predrawn plans.” Id. at 40. The court further observed that 
the buyer of a newly constructed house “has little or no opportunity to inspect” and “must rely 
upon the integrity and the skill of the builder-vendor.” Id. The court concluded that the “vendee 
                                                 
 
2At oral argument counsel for plaintiff acknowledged that there were service irregularities in this 
case. He apologized for the errors but contended that they did not warrant granting defendants relief. 
 
 
- 5 - 
 
has a right to expect to receive that for which he has bargained and that which the 
builder-vendor has agreed to construct and convey to him, that is, a house that is reasonably fit 
for use as a residence.” Id. Accordingly, the court determined that recognition of an implied 
warranty of habitability was appropriate. 
¶ 20 
 
Petersen stressed that the implied warranty of habitability is based in the contract of sale 
and arises “by virtue of the execution of the agreement between the vendor and the vendee.” Id. 
at 41. It exists, the court stated, “as an independent undertaking collateral to the covenant to 
convey” that relaxes the rule of caveat emptor and the doctrine of merger and “is implied as a 
separate covenant between the builder-vendor and the vendee because of the unusual 
dependent relationship of the vendee to the vendor.” Id. It is, in short, “an implied covenant by 
the builder-vendor that the house which he contracts to build and to convey to the vendee is 
reasonably suited for its intended use.” Id. 
¶ 21 
 
In addition to recognizing the implied warranty of habitability, Petersen held that the 
warranty may be waived and that such a waiver would not be against public policy. Id. at 43. 
The court also determined, however, that the language of any waiver provision will be strictly 
construed against the builder-vendor and that, to be valid, the waiver must be a conspicuous 
provision that fully discloses its consequences and establishes that the waiver was in fact the 
agreement reached by the parties. Id. See also Board of Managers of the Village Centre 
Condominium Ass’n v. Wilmette Partners, 198 Ill. 2d 132 (2001) (to be valid, a waiver of the 
implied warranty of habitability must refer to the warranty by name). 
¶ 22 
 
In Redarowicz, this court was confronted with the issue of whether the implied warranty of 
habitability could be extended to a second purchaser of a house. Courts addressing this issue 
have reached differing results. Some courts have concluded that, where the implied warranty is 
deemed to arise out of a contract of sale, it cannot be extended to a second purchaser. These 
courts have reasoned that, because there is no sales agreement between the builder-vendor and 
the second purchaser and hence no privity of contract, there can be no implied warranty. See, 
e.g., Long Trail House Condominium Ass’n v. Engelberth Construction, Inc., 2012 VT 80, 
¶ 31, 59 A.3d 752 (“Our case law plainly contemplates the existence of contractual privity 
before a breach of implied warranty claim can be raised.”); Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing 
Homeowners Ass’n v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC, 2009 UT 65, ¶ 57, 221 P.3d 234 
(“Privity of contract is required to bring a claim for breach of the implied warranty.”). One 
court, in declining to extend the implied warranty to a second purchaser, determined that, while 
there were reasonable arguments in favor of extending the warranty, those arguments were 
“predominately grounded in policy considerations” outside the realm of contract law and thus 
required “judgments reserved to the legislature.” Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc., 99 A.3d 
67, 72 (Pa. 2014). 
¶ 23 
 
Other courts, however, including this court in Redarowicz, have held that the implied 
warranty of habitability may be extended to a second purchaser. In Redarowicz, the defendant 
builder completed the construction of a house for its original owners in early 1976. 
Approximately one year later, the house was sold to the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, the 
plaintiff discovered defects in the exterior chimney and brick wall. He then filed a complaint 
against the builder-vendor, alleging liability under both tort theories and the implied warranty 
of habitability. The complaint was dismissed by the circuit court, and, in relevant part, that 
judgment was affirmed on appeal. Redarowicz, 92 Ill. 2d at 174-76. 
 
 
- 6 - 
 
¶ 24 
 
This court began its analysis by first holding that, under the economic loss rule, the 
builder-vendor could not be subject to liability in tort. The economic loss rule, which was 
adopted by this court in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 
(1982), holds that a plaintiff may not recover for solely economic loss in tort. As Redarowicz 
noted, a buyer’s desire to enjoy the benefit of his bargain is protected by the law of contracts 
and is “not an interest that tort law traditionally protects.” Redarowicz, 92 Ill. 2d at 177. Thus, 
to recover in tort, there must be a showing of harm “above and beyond disappointed 
expectations.” Id. See also, e.g., East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 
U.S. 858, 870 (1986) (the failure of a purchaser to receive the benefit of its bargain is 
“traditionally the core concern of contract law”). Applying the economic loss rule, Redarowicz 
held that the plaintiff was seeking only damages for the cost of repair and replacement of the 
damaged chimney and adjoining structures, and, while the damage to these structures meant 
that he received less than what he bargained for when he purchased the house, the 
complained-of economic losses were not recoverable in tort. Redarowicz, 92 Ill. 2d at 178. 
¶ 25 
 
With respect to the implied warranty of habitability, however, this court concluded that the 
plaintiff’s complaint could proceed. In so holding, Redarowicz emphasized the short time 
period—approximately one year—between the completion of the construction of the house 
and the time the plaintiff, the second purchaser, bought it. Id. at 183. This short time period was 
significant because it meant that the plaintiff occupied the house during a time when the 
original owners would still have been covered by the implied warranty of habitability if they 
had remained in the house. That being the case, allowing the plaintiff to pursue a cause of 
action for breach of the implied warranty would not alter the burdens or risks that were already 
placed on the builder-vendor and, importantly, would not alter the builder-vendor’s reasonable 
expectations. As this court explained, we “are an increasingly mobile people,” and, thus, “a 
builder-vendor should know that a house he builds might be resold within a relatively short 
period of time and should not expect that the warranty will be limited by the number of days 
that the original owner chooses to hold onto the property.” Id. at 185. Concluding that the 
“compelling public policies underlying the implied warranty of habitability should not be 
frustrated because of the short intervening ownership of the first purchaser” (id. at 183), this 
court held that contractual privity was not required to sustain a cause of action for breach of the 
implied warranty of habitability and that the warranty could be extended to the plaintiff under 
the facts presented. 
¶ 26 
 
Redarowicz stands for the proposition that it is fair to require a builder-vendor to pay a 
second purchaser of a house for the cost of repairing latent defects—even in the absence of any 
tort liability or contractual obligation to the second purchaser—so long as the second purchaser 
is seeking only to recover for damages that would have been available to the first purchaser. In 
such a case, it makes no difference from the builder-vendor’s perspective whether the plaintiff 
is a first or second purchaser; the builder-vendor’s burdens are not changed, and it is held to 
nothing more than those obligations that arose from its original contract with the first 
purchaser. 
¶ 27 
 
Notably, other courts have similarly concluded that it is reasonable to extend the implied 
warranty of habitability to a second purchaser when doing so does not alter the burdens already 
placed on the builder-vendor. See, e.g., Speight v. Walters Development Co., 744 N.W.2d 108, 
114 (Iowa 2008) (the “builder-vendor’s risk is not increased by allowing subsequent 
purchasers to recover for the same latent defects for which an original purchaser could 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
recover”); Lempke v. Dagenais, 547 A.2d 290, 295 (N.H. 1988) (“The builder already owes a 
duty to construct the home in a workmanlike manner. [Citation.] And extension to a 
subsequent purchaser, within a reasonable time, will not change this basic obligation.” 
(Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Keyes v. Guy Bailey Homes, Inc., 439 So. 2d 670, 673 
(Miss. 1983) (because a builder-vendor “already owes a duty to construct the home in a 
workmanlike manner,” extension of liability to a second purchaser will require “no greater 
effort [by] *** the builder to protect himself”); Nichols v. R.R. Beaufort & Associates, 727 
A.2d 174, 180 (R.I. 1999) (“allowing subsequent owners to maintain a similar cause of action 
*** will not drastically enlarge this basic obligation of the home builder”). See also William K. 
Jones, Economic Losses Caused by Construction Deficiencies: The Competing Regimes of 
Contract and Tort, 59 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1051, 1081 (1991) (“Absent express language to the 
contrary, courts should assume that a sale of property is a comprehensive transaction and that 
the buyer obtains from the seller all rights possessed by the seller. *** [A]nd, since the 
assignee obtains only the rights of the assignor, the obligations of the builder are not enlarged 
by assignment.”). 
¶ 28 
 
In this case, however, plaintiff is not simply seeking to recover those damages that would 
have been available to Lubeck, the first purchaser of the house, under the implied warranty of 
habitability. Instead, because Lubeck waived the implied warranty, plaintiff is seeking to 
recover more than what Lubeck would have been entitled to. Extending the implied warranty 
in these circumstances would significantly alter the burdens and expectations of defendants 
and would be inequitable. 
¶ 29 
 
A builder-vendor offers the purchaser of a new house a bargained-for waiver of the implied 
warranty of habitability in order to obtain a date certain on which the builder-vendor’s 
exposure to financial risk relating to the house will end. Obtaining this certainty, however, 
comes at a cost. The builder-vendor must either offer the purchaser a reduction in the price of 
the house or, as in this case, some other consideration, such as an express warranty, in 
exchange for the waiver. 
¶ 30 
 
If the implied warranty is extended to a second purchaser even in the face of a valid waiver, 
the financial certainty, which the builder-vendor bargained for and assumed it had obtained, is 
lost. The builder-vendor has no means of knowing when the house might be sold by the first 
purchaser or to whom and, thus, no way of knowing when, or if, liability for latent defects in 
the construction of the house will reappear. Thus, in this case, extending the implied warranty 
of habitability to plaintiff would mean that defendants paid the price to obtain the waiver of the 
implied warranty from Lubeck, by providing and performing under an express warranty, but 
face liability anyway. This is unreasonable. 
¶ 31 
 
Moreover, because a waiver of the implied warranty of habitability is effectively 
meaningless if liability may be revived at any time the house is sold, we think it fair to say that 
allowing the implied warranty to extend to second purchasers under the facts of this case would 
ensure that no builder-vendor would ever enter into waiver agreements in the future. A practice 
we expressly authorized in Petersen and that has been utilized in the housing industry for 
almost 40 years would thus be eliminated. 
¶ 32 
 
Other reasons also counsel against extending the implied warranty of habitability to a 
second purchaser when there has been a valid waiver. For example, assume a husband and wife 
purchase a new house in the wife’s name and, in exchange for the builder-vendor lowering the 
 
 
- 8 - 
 
purchase price of the house, the wife agrees to waive the implied warranty of habitability. The 
day after the sale closes, the wife transfers ownership of the house to the husband, thereby 
reviving the implied warranty. The couple would receive the benefits of both the lower price of 
the house and the implied warranty of habitability. 
¶ 33 
 
In addition, unlike a first purchaser, who often faces a “take it or leave it” decision when 
buying from a model home or predrawn plans, a second purchaser is in a much stronger 
position to negotiate with the seller for a warranty, to inquire about whether the implied 
warranty has been waived, or to get a reduction in purchase price to reflect the risk of latent 
defects. In this case, however, plaintiff knowingly chose not to do these things but, instead, to 
purchase the house from Lubeck “as is.” 
¶ 34 
 
Finally, it is important to again note that, under Illinois law, a second purchaser of a house 
may receive the benefit of an implied warranty of habitability that arises out of a sales contract 
between the first purchaser and the builder-vendor—a contract to which the second purchaser 
was not a party—because he is merely stepping into the shoes of the first purchaser. Along 
with that benefit, however, necessarily comes the flip side of the coin: if there is valid, 
bargained-for waiver by the first purchaser, the implied warranty cannot fairly be extended to 
the second purchaser. 
¶ 35 
 
We hold that the implied warranty of habitability may not be extended to a second 
purchaser of a house when a valid, bargained-for waiver of the warranty has been executed 
between the builder-vendor and the first purchaser. The appellate court therefore erred in 
holding that plaintiff could pursue his claim for breach of an implied warranty against 
defendants. Because we have granted defendants relief on this basis, we need not address their 
remaining arguments. 
 
¶ 36 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
¶ 37 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed. The judgment of 
the circuit court in favor of defendants is affirmed. 
 
¶ 38 
 
Appellate court judgment reversed. 
¶ 39 
 
Circuit court judgment affirmed.