Mars, Inc. v. Heritage Builders of Effingham, Inc.

Citations: 763 N.E.2d 428; 327 Ill. App. 3d 346; 261 Ill. Dec. 458; 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 67Docket: 4-01-0352

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; January 29, 2002; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mars, Inc. and Kal Kan Foods, Inc. (collectively, Kal Kan) initiated a warehouse expansion project in early 1995, engaging Heritage Builders of Effingham, which subcontracted GF General Contractors, Inc. (GF) to erect a steel-frame system for the new structure. Kal Kan contended that the frame was its property, having been purchased separately prior to GF's involvement. The frame collapsed in June 1995 due to inadequate bracing during a thunderstorm, prompting Kal Kan to sue GF for negligence in February 1998, claiming failure to properly brace the frame. GF sought dismissal based on the economic-loss doctrine established in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., arguing that the negligence claim was invalid due to the nature of the economic loss. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim, leading Kal Kan to appeal. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, affirming the trial court's ruling. Kal Kan's initial purchase order indicated a broader scope of work that included materials, despite claiming ownership of the frame. The inadequacies in GF's temporary bracing were cited as a contributing factor to the frame's collapse, resulting in extensive delays and additional costs for Kal Kan.

On February 19, 1998, Kal Kan amended its complaint against GF to include a negligence claim, alleging GF's improper erection and bracing of a frame led to its collapse during a storm. GF moved to dismiss this claim, citing the economic-loss doctrine from Moorman, but Judge Paul C. Komada denied the motion, ruling that the frame was not GF's "product" under Moorman, but rather the service of erecting it. Both parties agreed to this ruling without a written order. On August 10, 1998, GF answered the third-amended complaint, maintaining the Moorman defense. GF later filed a third-party complaint against Allen Engineering Corporation, the frame's manufacturer, also alleging negligence and citing Moorman. Allen sought dismissal based on the same doctrine. GF then moved for reconsideration of Komada's earlier ruling, arguing that if Allen's dismissal was granted, GF's motion should be reconsidered likewise. 

On June 22, 2000, Judge Gary Jacobs granted GF's motion for reconsideration and reviewed both GF’s and Allen’s motions together due to their similar reliance on Moorman. On June 24, 2000, Judge Jacobs ruled that Kal Kan’s negligence claims and GF’s third-party negligence claim improperly sought recovery of economic loss under tort theory per Moorman and did not meet recognized exceptions. On February 22, 2001, Kal Kan motioned for a final judgment against GF under Supreme Court Rule 304(a), which was granted on March 28, 2001, allowing for appeal. The appeal’s central issue is whether the economic-loss doctrine applies to construction material losses due to alleged subcontractor negligence. The review of the trial court's dismissal is de novo, interpreting all allegations favorably to the nonmoving party, with dismissal only warranted if the plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts for a cause of action.

The Moorman Doctrine originates from Illinois case law, specifically Moorman v. American Home Assurance Co., which established that a plaintiff cannot recover purely economic damages through tort claims. In the Moorman case, the plaintiff sued after a grain-storage tank developed a crack, alleging defects in design and manufacturing. The court dismissed the strict liability and negligence claims, ruling that claims based solely on economic loss—such as costs for repair or diminished product value—do not qualify for tort recovery since they do not involve personal injury or damage to other property. The court characterized "economic loss" as losses related to inadequate product value or lost profits without associated physical harm. It emphasized that tort law is designed to address personal injuries or property damage, while economic losses stemming from contract breaches should be resolved through contract law or the Uniform Commercial Code. Consequently, the economic-loss rule restricts tort remedies for purchaser disappointments linked to product deterioration or internal failure. This principle is upheld regardless of the plaintiff's inability to pursue a contract claim. Only three exceptions to this rule have been acknowledged.

A plaintiff can recover economic damages in tort under specific conditions: (1) if there is personal injury or property damage due to a sudden or dangerous occurrence; (2) if the damages are proximately caused by the defendant's intentional false misrepresentation; or (3) if caused by a negligent misrepresentation made by a defendant who supplies information for business transactions. Kal Kan, seeking only economic damages from GF without alleging personal injury, claimed property damage totaling $306,000, attributed to the loss of value and lost profits related to a frame. The court, citing the Moorman Doctrine, determined that Kal Kan's claims constituted pure economic loss, as no allegations were made regarding misrepresentations by GF or Heritage. The court assessed whether the thunderstorm that caused the frame's collapse qualified as a "sudden and dangerous occurrence" under the Moorman exception. Kal Kan's assertion lacked substantial support; the complaint only noted the frame's collapse during a thunderstorm. The precedent from Moorman emphasized that economic losses, such as the loss of use of a product, fall under contract law rather than tort law. The court referenced a federal case definition, indicating that the "sudden and highly dangerous occurrence" exception applies when such occurrences pose a likelihood of personal injury or property damage.

The definition of "sudden and dangerous" in the Moorman analysis is acknowledged as somewhat circular but provides insight into its application, as illustrated by Illinois case law, such as Wheeling Trust, Savings Bank v. Tremco Inc., where certain claimed defects did not result in "sudden and calamitous" damage. In this context, Kal Kan has sufficiently alleged that property damage arose from a sudden and dangerous event during a thunderstorm, which was sudden and could lead to personal injury or damage to other property. However, merely establishing that the thunderstorm was a sudden event is insufficient under Moorman; the event must result in personal injury or damage to “other property” to qualify as an exception to the economic loss rule. The definition of "property damage" in Moorman emphasizes that mere damage to property itself does not suffice; the damage must involve property extrinsic to the defective product. The court clarifies that economic losses related solely to the defective product cannot be pursued in tort. Kal Kan's claim regarding the frame as "other property" is rejected, as ownership of the frame does not meet the Moorman criteria. The only reference supporting Kal Kan's ownership is a letter indicating the frame was invoiced to them, but this does not establish it as "other property" under the Moorman framework.

Kal Kan's ownership of the frame is not conclusively established in the letter, which was included as an exhibit in opposition to motions to dismiss, not attached to the complaints. The appeal is based on a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which restricts consideration to facts alleged in the complaint. The allegations regarding ownership are contradictory; while one paragraph claims Kal Kan sustained property damage to the frame, the fourth-amended complaint references a purchase order indicating that Heritage was responsible for constructing a warehouse, which complicates Kal Kan's ownership claim. In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, exhibits are part of the complaint and take precedence over conflicting factual allegations. The trial court could correctly conclude that the frame did not qualify as "other property" under a Moorman analysis due to these contradictions. Even if Kal Kan's ownership argument is accepted, it does not satisfy the criteria for "other property" in an economic-loss context, as the frame is viewed as part of an integrated system rather than independent property. This aligns with precedents where damage to property was considered part of an integrated unit, as illustrated by the East River case, where malfunctioning turbines were deemed to have only damaged themselves and not "other property." The same reasoning applies to the Trans States case involving an aircraft engine incorporated into an airframe.

An aircraft experienced an engine failure that resulted in a fire, damaging both the engine and the surrounding airframe. The plaintiff, a lessor of the aircraft, sought damages for repair costs and lost revenue, arguing that the engine and airframe were separate products, thus classifying the airframe damage as "other property." However, the supreme court ruled that the engine and airframe were a single integrated product based on the lease agreement, which specified a fully integrated aircraft rather than individual components. The court emphasized that the parties' contract and their bargained-for expectations were central to determining liability. 

The analysis compared this case to Kal Kan's contract with Heritage for constructing a warehouse, asserting that Kal Kan did not have a separate agreement with GF, the service provider, thereby making the steel frame integral to the contract. The ruling aligned with the economic loss doctrine, which states that parties can allocate risks through contracts without needing tort law protections for breach-related damages. Since only business expectancy was affected when the frame collapsed, and no other property was damaged, the court affirmed that the issue fell within contract law, not tort law. The court noted that if the frame had damaged other property, the outcome could differ, referencing a precedent where tort recovery was allowed for damages beyond mere product failure.

A duty of ordinary care and skill arises when there is a risk of damaging a protected interest, traditionally linked to safety from physical harm. Personal injuries and property interests are generally protected against physical harm, but mere deterioration or loss of bargain relates to a failure to meet quality standards defined by the parties' agreement. Kal Kan's claim falls under the principles established in Moorman, which asserts that tort law should not encroach upon contractual relationships. Kal Kan's request for a negligence claim based on not receiving the benefit of its bargain would extend tort law beyond its intended boundaries, risking a conflation with contract law. Consequently, the court affirms the trial court's judgment. Judge Myerscough concurs in part and dissents in part, agreeing that the thunderstorm was a sudden danger but arguing that the damage to the steel frame, arising from GF’s alleged negligence, constitutes damage to "other property," which allows Kal Kan’s claims to proceed despite the economic-loss doctrine. Thus, Myerscough would reverse the trial court's ruling on this point.