Opinion ID: 3134249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ill App. 3d 344 (1978); Bednarski v. Hideout Homes & Realty, Inc.,

Text: 709 F. Supp. 90 (M.D. Pa. 1988)). Only a consumer plaintiff who suffers a personal injury may satisfy the section 2--607 notice requirement by filing a complaint stating a breach of warranty action against the seller. Accord Goldstein, 62 Ill. App. 3d 344; Bednarski, 709 F. Supp. 90. The reason for this distinction is that where the breach has not resulted in personal injury, the UCC indicates a preference that the breach be cured without a lawsuit. Since the instant plaintiffs did not allege that they suffered any personal injuries as a result of the Samurai's alleged roll-over risk, the section 2--607 notice requirement was not fulfilled by filing a breach of warranty complaint. Perona, 276 Ill. App. 3d 609. Since plaintiffs failed to allege direct notice to Suzuki and since plaintiffs may not rely upon either exception to the direct notice requirement, plaintiffs' complaint did not satisfy the section 2--607 notice requirement. That failure to allege sufficient notice is fatal to plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims. 810 ILCS 5/2--607(3) (West 1994); 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. §2607 (1984); Board of Education, 131 Ill. 2d at 462-63; Williams v. West Penn Power Co., 313 Pa. Super. 461, 460 A.2d 278 (1983). Thus, we reverse the appellate court's finding that plaintiffs adequately pled notice and hold that the breach of warranty counts in plaintiffs' complaint were properly dismissed by the circuit court.