Court Opinion

ID: 9729655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:45:53.209484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:59.341348
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting: In my view the decision in Calumet Country Club v. Roberts Environmental Control Corp. (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 610, 483 N.E.2d 613, is controlling in the instant case and, therefore, I must dissent. The majority distinguishes the Calumet Country Club decision on the ground that here defendant relied upon the affidavit of Clarence Moser while in Calumet Country Club there was no indication of any supporting affidavits. This distinction overlooks the fact that the Moser affidavit contains no facts supporting a conclusion that the cold rolling mill was an improvement to real property. Moser does not describe the cold rolling mill or its relationship to the plant of which it is a part. There is no evidence of its permanence, its construction, its method or extent of attachment to the building in which it is located, or the value of the building before and after the mill was installed. In other words, nothing in the record supports the conclusion of the majority. Mere statements of defendant’s counsel in written and oral argument are not evidence that the cold rolling mill is an improvement to real estate as contemplated by section 13 — 214(b). Defendant relies upon Hilliard v. Lummus Co. (7th Cir. 1987), 834 F.2d 1352, where a screw conveyor installed in a cocoa processing plant was held to be an integral component of the cocoa processing system and central to the operation of the entire plant; hence, the conveyor was an improvement to real property within the meaning of section 13 — 214(b). The court specifically ruled that the definitions used in fixture law do not apply under section 13 — 214(b) so that a determination of the permanence of attachment is not necessary for a finding that a structure is an improvement. The court distinguished cases where the defendant had only manufactured a piece of equipment to be installed on real property from those where the defendants designed and constructed general improvements to the property. In Hilliard, the trial court had entered summary judgment for the defendant, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed. Under the reasoning of the Hilliard case, the question in the case at bar would be whether the cold rolling mill is an integral component of the entire plant or whether it is a piece of equipment placed in the plant to perform a particular function. Defendant also cites Continental Insurance Co. v. Walsh Construction Co. (1988), 171 Ill. App. 3d 135, 524 N.E.2d 1131, where the trial court entered summary judgment for defendant upon a finding that plaintiffs action for damages caused to its building by the allegedly negligent services of defendant was barred because the underground tunnel system for sewer purposes constructed by defendant was not a mere repair but was an improvement to real estate. In Hilliard v. Lummus Co. and in Continental Insurance Co. v. Walsh Construction Co. and other cases cited by defendant, the trial courts had sufficient evidence in the record to determine the nature of the construction work in question. In the case at bar, the trial court did not. At this stage of the litigation, before any discovery, I would hold that the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss.