Opinion ID: 3134388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ill 2d at 40. Additionally, the owner usually relies on the

Text: integrity and skill of the builder, who is in the business of building houses. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 40. Finally, the owner has a right to expect to receive a house that is reasonably fit for use as a residence. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 40. Since Petersen, Illinois courts have defined and extended the circumstances under which claims based on an implied warranty of habitability can be recognized. See Park v. Sohn, 89 Ill. 2d 453 (1982) (builder-vendor need not be mass producer, just one engaged in the business of building such that the sale is of a commercial nature); McClure v. Sennstrom, 267 Ill. App. 3d 277 (1994) (house built upon foundation of an old house still qualified as a new home); Hefler v. Wright, 121 Ill. App. 3d 739 (1984) (doctrine applies to person who erected a house manufactured by another company and built on the plaintiff's land); Briarcliffe West Townhouse Owners Ass'n v. Wiseman Construction Co., 118 Ill. App. 3d 163 (1983) (latent defect in common land can affect habitability); Minton v. Richards Group, 116 Ill. App. 3d 852 (1983) (innocent purchaser could bring an action against a subcontractor when he had no recourse to the builder-vendor and he had sustained a loss in his home due to a latent defect); Tassan v. United Development Co., 88 Ill. App. 3d 581 (1980) (doctrine applies against developer-seller of new condominium unit). Plaintiff claims that the implied warranty of habitability should now be extended to include actions against a builder brought by a subsequent purchaser for latent defects in a later addition to a home. In Kelley v. Astor Investors, Inc., 106 Ill. 2d 505 (1985), this court held that the defendants were not subject to the implied warranty of habitability for a condominium-conversion project. The court held that the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability did not apply because the refurbishing and renovation of the project had not been significant. Kelley, 106 Ill. 2d at 509. In the present case, the builder made a major addition to an existing home. We now hold that, when a builder makes a significant addition to a previously built home, an action for damages resulting from latent defects affecting habitability exists under the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability. An owner claiming that latent defects exist in a major addition to a structure should be provided the same protection for the addition as that given to the owners in Petersen and its progeny. In both cases, the owner of the house usually has little knowledge regarding the construction. The purchaser of both a completed home and an addition places the same trust in the builder that the structure being erected is suitable for living. Further, the ordinary buyer is not in a position to discover hidden defects in a structure even through the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care. We must next determine whether the plaintiff can bring this action even though he is a subsequent purchaser. In Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171, 183 (1982), this court extended the implied warranty of habitability to subsequent purchasers of a new home, finding that there was no need for privity of contract because the warranty of habitability exists independently of the contract for sale. Because the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability has been extended to actions by subsequent purchasers of new homes, we can see no reason why the doctrine should not be extended to actions by subsequent purchasers of a home for latent defects in a significant addition to the home made prior to the time of sale. We hold that a subsequent purchaser has a cause of action for damages resulting from a breach of the implied warranty of habitability for latent defects caused in the construction of a significant structural addition to an existing residence. The decision of whether there is a latent defect in a significant construction by one engaged in the business of building is a question of fact to be determined in the trial court. We note that this extension is consistent with decisions from other states. In Lempke v. Dagenais, 130 N.H. 782, 547 A.2d 290 (1988), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire allowed a claim for a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike quality by a subsequent purchaser against a builder who had added a garage to the house. In an unsuccessful suit against a contractor who had merely added a patio to a house, the Supreme Court of New Jersey stated that actions could be brought under the implied warranty of habitability so long as the defect in the construction was sufficiently serious to affect the home's habitability. Aronsohn v. Mandara, 98 N.J. 92, 484 A.2d 675 (1984). In the case before us, it is reasonable to conclude that a defect in a multilevel addition increasing the size of the original house by almost 40% could affect its habitability. B. Time-Barred Limitation Having determined that a cause of action exists, we must next determine whether it is time-barred. In the trial court, defendant claimed that section 13--214 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred plaintiff from recovery because more than 10 years had elapsed from the time the addition was constructed. See 735 ILCS 5/13--214(b) (West 1994). In its brief before this court, however, defendant adopts the language of Redarowicz and asserts that plaintiff cannot recover because the action has not been brought within a reasonable time. Redarowicz, 92 Ill. 2d at 185. Because neither court addressed the issue in dismissing plaintiff's original or amended complaints, plaintiff contends the lower courts accepted the 11-year gap as reasonable for bringing suit. Plaintiff further asserts that the time within which an action may be brought should start on the date the subsequent purchaser takes ownership of the premises, not from the date of completion of construction. Because the parties have neither briefed nor argued in this court whether it is the repose provision of section 13--214 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the reasonable time standard of Redarowicz that controls the time limitation here, we do not decide that question today. We believe, however, that under either of defendant's theories--the repose period of section 13--214 or the reasonable time standard of Redarowicz--the 11-year gap between the time of the construction and the claim for damages resulting from a latent defect bars plaintiff from recovery in this case. Under section 13- -214 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff's action is barred because it has been longer than 10 years since the date of construction of the addition. Further, under the reasonable time standard of Redarowicz, we find the 11-year period between the date of the act or omission causing the defect and the time the action was brought to be an unreasonable time to hold a builder liable. A builder cannot be a lifetime guarantor of construction, susceptible to a claim for damages under the implied warranty of habitability beyond the foreseeable future. We therefore hold that the reasonable time for bringing a cause of action under the reasonable time standard of Redarowicz begins with the act or omission causing the defect rather than the date on which the subsequent purchaser takes title to the property. Because plaintiff would not prevail whether the claim must be brought within 10 years under the statute of repose or within a reasonable time under Redarowicz, we find that the claim is time- barred.