Opinion ID: 2144159
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Unspecified Property Damage

Text: The trial court also ruled that the economic loss rule did not bar recovery for those plaintiffs who incurred unspecified property damage. The appellate court affirmed. We disagree. Class plaintiffs must plead facts identifying the type of property damage that they incurred. See People ex rel. Fahner v. Carriage Way West, Inc., 88 Ill.2d 300, 308, 58 Ill.Dec. 754, 430 N.E.2d 1005 (1981). The conclusory allegation of unspecified property damage is insufficient to show that their damages are recoverable in tort, and cannot withstand a motion to dismiss. See Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill.2d 407, 426-28, 58 Ill.Dec. 725, 430 N.E.2d 976 (1981). We note class plaintiffs' argument that subsequent discovery has produced and will continue to produce evidence of the type of property damage alleged. Thus, according to class plaintiffs, the City has been or will be advised of the specific property damage alleged. To dismiss the claims for lack of specificity in the complaint would be pointless because class plaintiffs would simply replead with more specificity to conform to currently known facts. Of course, this argument lacks merit. This was a section 2-615 motion to dismiss. The motion attacks only the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The only matters for the court to consider in ruling on the motion are the allegations of the pleadings themselves, rather than the underlying facts. Thus, the court may not consider affidavits, the products of discovery, documentary evidence not incorporated into the pleadings, or other evidence in ruling on a section 2-615 motion. Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill.2d 458, 475, 159 Ill.Dec. 50, 575 N.E.2d 548 (1991); See Barber-Colman Co. v. A & K Midwest Insulation Co., 236 Ill. App.3d 1065, 1068-69, 177 Ill.Dec. 841, 603 N.E.2d 1215 (1992).