Establishing Tort Liability for Asbestos-Related Property Damage in Educational Institutions

Establishing Tort Liability for Asbestos-Related Property Damage in Educational Institutions

Introduction

In The Board of Education of City of Chicago et al. v. A, C and S, Inc., et al. (131 Ill. 2d 428, 1989), the Supreme Court of Illinois addressed significant issues surrounding asbestos contamination in educational facilities. The case consolidated complaints from 34 school districts against 78 defendants involved in the manufacturing and distribution chain of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The central legal question was whether these school districts had sufficiently pleaded causes of action to recover costs associated with the removal and repair of asbestos hazards in their buildings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed parts of the appellate court's decision while reversing others. Specifically, the court upheld the validity of strict liability, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims brought by the plaintiffs but dismissed claims based on concert of action, implied cause of action under the Asbestos Abatement Act, intentional misrepresentation, restitution, consumer fraud, and breach of warranty. Furthermore, the court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the viable causes of action due to the public nature of the plaintiffs' interests. The case was remanded to the circuit court of Cook County for further proceedings on the affirmed claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped its outcome. Notably:

  • Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. (1982): Established the economic loss doctrine, differentiating between tort claims (which require personal injury or property damage) and contract claims (which address economic losses).
  • SEELY v. WHITE MOTOR CO. (1965): Clarified that physical injury to property is akin to personal injury in strict liability cases.
  • Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (3d Cir. 1981): Introduced an intermediate approach focusing on the nature of defects and types of risk, later rejected by the Supreme Court.
  • CITY OF GREENVILLE v. W.R. GRACE CO. (4th Cir. 1987): Affirmed that contamination of public buildings by asbestos constitutes actionable property damage under tort law.
  • SAWYER REALTY GROUP, INC. v. JARVIS CORP. (1982): Outlined factors to determine if a statute creates an implied private right of action.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on differentiating between tort and contract claims under the economic loss doctrine. For tort claims like strict liability and negligence, the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk resulting in actual property damage or personal injury, not merely economic loss. The court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged property contamination by asbestos, sufficient to state a tort claim.

Regarding misrepresentation claims, the court differentiated between fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. While the plaintiffs struggled to meet the stringent requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation—such as specificity in alleging deceit—the court supported the continuation of negligence claims under Restatement (Second) of Torts §311, which covers negligent misrepresentation involving physical harm.

The court also addressed the Consumer Fraud Act, determining that school districts did not qualify as "natural persons" or "corporations" under the statute, thus barring their claims.

On the issue of statute of limitations, the court reaffirmed that governmental entities acting to protect public interests could be immune from limitations periods, aligning with Shelbyville v. Shelbyville Restorium, Inc. (1983).

Impact

This judgment has substantial implications for future asbestos litigation, particularly in educational contexts. By affirming that proper tort claims can be made based on property damage due to asbestos contamination, the court has opened the door for governmental entities to seek redress for public health hazards. It reinforces the economic loss doctrine by maintaining clear boundaries between tort and contract claims, ensuring that tort law remains a pathway for addressing actual harm rather than indirect economic losses.

Additionally, the decision clarifies the limitations of the Consumer Fraud Act, emphasizing the importance of statutory definitions and the necessity for plaintiffs to fit within those definitions. This underscores the need for precise statutory interpretation in complex multi-defendant litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Economic Loss Doctrine

The economic loss doctrine prevents plaintiffs from recovering purely economic damages under tort law when a contractual relationship exists. In this case, the doctrine was pivotal in distinguishing between claims for property damage (tort) and purely economic losses (contract).

Strict Liability

Strict liability holds manufacturers and sellers liable for defective products regardless of fault. Here, the court determined that asbestos, as a defective product causing property damage, fell within this liability scope.

Negligent Misrepresentation

This occurs when a party carelessly provides false information that another relies upon, resulting in harm. The court accepted that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged negligence in misrepresenting asbestos safety, aligning with Restatement (Second) of Torts §311.

Restitution Under Restatement of Restitution §115

Restitution seeks to prevent unjust enrichment by requiring a party to reimburse another for benefits conferred. The court dismissed this claim, finding no established duty on defendants to perform asbestos abatement actions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Illinois' decision in Board of Education of City of Chicago et al. v. A, C and S, Inc., et al. marks a significant development in asbestos litigation within the state. By affirming that strict liability, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims are viable when plaintiffs allege actual property damage due to asbestos contamination, the court has reinforced the avenues available for governmental entities to seek remediation for public health hazards.

This ruling underscores the necessity for precise allegations in complex multi-defendant cases and clarifies the limitations of certain statutory protections, such as the Consumer Fraud Act. It also highlights the enduring relevance of foundational tort principles like the economic loss doctrine in maintaining clear legal boundaries. Overall, the judgment plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape for environmental and public health litigation, ensuring that harmful practices resulting in tangible damages can be effectively challenged in court.

Case Details

Year: 1989
Court: Supreme Court of Illinois.

Judge(s)

JUSTICE RYAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Attorney(S)

Novack Macey, of Chicago (Stephen Novack and P. Andrew Fleming, of counsel), for appellant A, C and S, Inc. Baker McKenzie, of Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey, Daniel J. Cheely, Steven R. Ayres and Corinne Seither, of counsel), for appellant Fiberboard Corp. Nolan, O'Malley Dunne, of Chicago (S. Robert Depke and Michael J. Nolan, of counsel), for appellant Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co. Schiff, Hardin Waite, of Chicago (Robert H. Riley, Catherine Masters Epstein and Andrea E. Lodahl, of counsel), for appellant Owens-Illinois, Inc. Katten, Muchin Zavis, of Chicago (James C. Murray, Jr., Patrick J. Lamb and Kirk T. Hartley, of counsel), for appellant GAF Corp. Haskell Perrin, of Chicago (Edward Matushek III and Jerome Duchowicz, of counsel), for appellant A M Insulation, Inc. Arnstein, Gluck, Lehr Milligan, of Chicago (Patrick F. Geary and Terri L. Bartelstein, of counsel), for appellants Hill-Behan Lumber Co. and J.J. Barney Lumber Co. Schroeder Seeley, Ltd., of Geneva (John L. Schroeder and Therese S. Seeley, of counsel), for appellant Wilkin Insulation. Rooks, Pitts Poust, of Chicago (Douglas P. Roller, William D. Seith and Tamara A. Capello, of counsel), for appellant Dana Corp. Rooks, Pitts Poust, of Chicago (Kathy A. Smith, John G. Poust and Jill M. Rappis, of counsel), for appellant Chicago Fire Brick Co. Sachnoff, Weaver Rubinstein, Ltd., of Chicago (Arnold A. Pagniucci, Steven H. Cohen and Stuart A. Chanen, of counsel), for appellant Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney Priess, of Chicago (Patrick E. Maloney and Stephen T. Grossmark, of counsel), for appellant Flintkote Co. McDermott, Will Emery, of Chicago (Gary Jackson and Lawrence E. Zabinski, of counsel), for appellants Georgia-Pacific Co. and Uniroyal, Inc. Pretzel Stouffer, Chtd., of Chicago (Neil K. Quinn and John V. Smith II, of counsel), for appellant Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. Chadwell Kayser, Ltd., of Chicago (J. Michael Newton and Erica A. Munzel, of counsel), for appellant Raymark Industries, Inc. McDermott, Will Emery, of Chicago (Steven P. Handler, Maureen A. Murphy and Janet M. Koran, of counsel), for appellant Cassiar Mining Corp. Kiesler Berman, of Chicago (Robert Kiesler and Cynthia A. Meister, of counsel), for appellant Illinois Insulation Construction Co. John B. Grogan, Ltd., of Chicago (Susan Gunty, of counsel), for appellant Grant-Wilson, Inc. Gorham, Metge, Bowman Hourigan, of Chicago (Edward H. MacCabe and Christopher A. Kreid, of counsel), for appellant John J. Moroney Co. Burke, Bosselman Weaver, of Chicago (Victor P. Fillippini, Jr., Keith A. Klopferstein, Edward F. Ryan and Mark A. Stang, of counsel), for appellant Union Carbide Corp. Michael P. Connelly, Bruce C. Howard and John R. Ostojic, of Connelly, Mustes Palmer, of Chicago, for appellants Carey-Canada, Inc. and The Celotex Corp. Schoen Smith, Ltd., of Chicago (David Smith, of counsel), for appellant Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. Kirkland Ellis, of Chicago (John H. Morrison and James H. Gale, of counsel), for appellant Pfizer, Inc. Pellett, Lundblad Baker, of Chicago (Robert L. Martier, of counsel), for appellant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. O'Brien, Redding Hyde, of Chicago (James M. Domer, of counsel), for appellant M. Mauritzon Co. French, Rogers, Kezelis Kominiarek, P.C., of Chicago (Gilbert J. Rogers and Terence R. Selby, of counsel), for appellant Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Kurnik Cipolla, of Arlington Heights (Thomas Platt, of counsel), for appellant Nicolet Industries, Inc. O'Connor Schiff, of Chicago (Neil D. O'Connor and William C. Brittan, of counsel), for appellant Iten Industries. Edward Melia and George F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., of Wildman, Harrold, Allen Dixon, of Chicago, for appellants CertainTeed Corp. and Combustion Engineering, Inc. John J. Verscaj, of Bell, Boyd Lloyd, of Chicago, for appellant W.R. Grace Co. Jack T. Riley, Jr., of Johnson, Cusack Bell, of Chicago, for appellant Proko Industries, Inc. Eugene E. Gozdecki, of Gozdecki, Zido Behnke, of Chicago, for appellant C. Tennant Sons Co. of New York. Thomas R. Meites, Lynn Sara Frackman, Michael M. Mulder and Joan H. Burger, of Meites, Frackman Mulder, of Chicago, for appellee Evanston Community Consolidated School. Patricia Whitten, Susan Einspar-Wayne and Karen Gatsis Anderson, of Chicago, of counsel, for appellee Chicago Board of Education. John H. Hager and Elaine K.B. Siegel, of Hager Collins, of Chicago, for appellee Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211. Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz, Solicitor General, of Chicago, and Marilyn A. Kueper and Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Assistant Attorneys General, of Springfield, of counsel), for amicus curiae Attorney General of the State of Illinois.

Comments