Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court held that section 13-207 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure saves a time-barred responsive counterclaim for contribution when the statutory requirements are satisfied. The court concluded that section 13-207 is a savings provision, not a statute of limitations, and is compatible with the two-year contribution limitation in section 13-204. The court therefore answered the certified issue in the affirmative and allowed Osman Construction Corporation’s contribution counterclaim against Casco Design Corporation to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether section 13-207 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure saves a responsive contribution counterclaim that is otherwise barred by the two-year limitation period in section 13-204.
- Whether a codefendant that files a contribution claim is a 'plaintiff' and the responding codefendant is a 'defendant' for purposes of section 13-207.
- Whether the preemption language in section 13-204 overrides the savings provision in section 13-207.
Holdings
- Section 13-207 permits a responsive counterclaim for contribution to proceed even though the counterclaim is otherwise barred by section 13-204's two-year limitation period, provided the statutory requirements of section 13-207 are met.
- Section 13-204 does not override section 13-207 because the two provisions address different functions and can be applied harmoniously.
Key quotations
“These cases uniformly stand for the proposition that a codefendant initiating an adversarial relationship by filing a cross-claim against another co-defendant is considered a "plaintiff" and the codefendant filing a counterclaim in response is considered a "defendant" for purposes of the saving clause.” (216 Ill. 2d at 447)
“Section 13-207 cannot be a statute of limitations because its aim is not to bar claims, but to preserve them.” (216 Ill. 2d at 452)
“This is a two-step inquiry that gives effect to both statutes.” (216 Ill. 2d at 463)
“We hold that the interplay between sections 13-204 and 13-207 allows Osman's otherwise time-barred counterclaim to proceed.” (216 Ill. 2d at 467)
Factual background
On July 8, 1997, a masonry wall collapsed at a construction site, injuring Jesus Barragan and killing Roberto Barragan. The Barragans sued Osman, the general contractor, and later added Casco, the project architect. Osman filed a contribution claim against Casco after the two-year period in section 13-204 had expired, but Casco had filed its own contribution claim against Osman four days earlier, creating the adversarial relationship to which Osman responded.
Procedural history
After a construction-site accident, the Barragans sued Osman and Casco. Casco filed a contribution claim against Osman, and Osman later filed a responsive contribution counterclaim against Casco more than two years after service of process in the underlying action. The circuit court dismissed the counterclaim as untimely, and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed both judgments and remanded.
Remand instructions
The judgments of the Illinois Appellate Court and circuit court are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings on Osman's contribution counterclaim.