descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Tipsord v. Unarco Industries, Inc.

Citations: 188 Ill. App. 3d 895; 544 N.E.2d 1198; 136 Ill. Dec. 423; 1989 Ill. App. LEXIS 1476Docket: Nos. 4-89-0058, 4-89-0059, 4-89-0060 cons.

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 28, 1989; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves separate lawsuits filed by three plaintiffs against two defendants, Special Materials, Inc.-Wisconsin and Special Shipping, Inc., alleging injury from asbestos exposure provided to their employer, Unarco Industries. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of both defendants, which were subsequently appealed and consolidated. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Special Materials but upheld it for Special Shipping. The court found that the affidavits supporting Special Materials' motion were insufficient under Supreme Court Rule 191, as they lacked personal knowledge and denied plaintiffs the opportunity to inspect referenced records. In contrast, Special Shipping's incorporation date, confirmed by affidavit, established its non-liability for asbestos-related activities prior to incorporation, which occurred after the plaintiffs' employment. Consequently, the judgments for Special Materials were reversed due to inadequate evidence, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, while the judgments for Special Shipping were affirmed based on the adequate proof of incorporation date, indicating no liability for prior actions.

Legal Issues Addressed

Admissibility of Evidence and Right to Discovery

Application: Special Materials failed to provide admissible evidence by denying plaintiffs the opportunity to inspect referenced records, violating discovery rights.

Reasoning: The plaintiffs requested to inspect the records underlying the affidavits, but this request was denied, violating the requirement for admissible evidence under Supreme Court Rule 191.

Corporate Liability for Pre-Incorporation Activities

Application: Special Materials argued non-liability for pre-1969 activities, as plaintiffs did not allege assumption of preexisting liabilities.

Reasoning: Special Materials argues it cannot be liable for actions before its incorporation in 1969, but plaintiffs did not allege that Special Materials assumed any preexisting liabilities.

Establishing Corporate Identity and Liability through Incorporation Evidence

Application: Special Shipping's incorporation date proved non-liability for asbestos supply, as it postdated plaintiffs' employment.

Reasoning: The affidavit included a certificate that confirmed the incorporation date, establishing the defendant’s identity.

Requirements for Supporting Affidavits in Summary Judgment Motions under Supreme Court Rule 191

Application: Affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and contain factual information, which was insufficiently provided by Special Materials.

Reasoning: Supreme Court Rule 191 mandates that supporting affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and contain factual information.

Summary Judgment Standards under Section 2-1005(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure

Application: The court assesses whether the evidence resolves all factual matters in favor of the movant for summary judgment.

Reasoning: Under section 2-1005(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, summary judgments require that the evidence presented resolves all factual matters in favor of the movant.