Construction Law

Section 7 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act does not require the inclusion of a statement of the contract completion date on a lien claim in order to be enforceable. Mechanics Lien Act must be strictly construed, as mechanics' liens were not recognized at common law or in equity but exist only by virtue of statutes. (HUTCHINSON and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

Plaintiff realty company sued Defendant company five years after Defendant completed construction of 50-story high rise building on its property, which was across the street from Plaintiff's building, for breach of agreement to indemnify Plaintiff for losses suffered due to the construction. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant used its property, during construction, such that it was impossible for Plaintiff to lease commercial space in its building. Indemnity agreement is broad enough to encompass both first-party and third-party claims. Ten-year limitations period for actions on written contracts governs, rather than four-year period for construction suits, as Defendant's potential liability emanates from its obligation under the written indemnification agreement, and is not related to Defendant's capacity as supervisor or manager of the construction. (QUINN and STEELE, concurring.)

Court properly entered judgment in favor of HVAC contractor for medical office facility and surgery center on its mechanic's lien claim filed against physician and his wife, who was trustee of a trust which owned the property. HVAC company's claim was not barred by Section 6 of Mechanics Lien Act, as it was seeking to enforce its lien for work for which it had not been paid, and which was begun several months after the start of its initial work on the project; the work for which lien was asserted began within 3 years of when company ceased working on project due to non-payment. Three-year period of Lien Act commences with the beginning of work for which the mechanic's lien is asserted and not with the date upon which the contract for such work was entered into. Property owners failed to prove that company breached contract, as general contractor instructed company to commence its work prior to IDPH approval of design plans, and construction problems noted later were remedied and were described as not uncommon by IDPH architect. (HALL and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Plaintiff, an underground utility business specializing in installation of water and sewer lines, sued residential construction businesses for non-payment. Trial court ordered construction businesses to pay money into escrow account pending final resolution of cases. Plaintiff requested only monetary relief, thus injunctive relief inappropriate as an improper prejudgment equitable attachment. Equitable attachments are prohibited in Illinois except where claimant has interest in specific funds held by debtor, which was not the case here, as funds had no connection to underlying dispute.

Plaintiff, an underground utility business specializing in installation of water and sewer lines, sued residential construction businesses for non-payment. Trial court ordered construction businesses to pay money into escrow account pending final resolution of cases. Plaintiff requested only monetary relief, thus injunctive relief inappropriate as an improper prejudgment equitable attachment. Equitable attachments are prohibited in Illinois except where claimant has interest in specific funds held by debtor, which was not the case here, as funds had no connection to underlying dispute.

Language in contract between engineering companies and developer obligated engineering companies to employ professional standard of care in designing replacement for bridge deck. Affidavit of civil engineer is evidence that companies breached standard of care by not considering or designing improved median barrier, although median barrier was not explicitly mentioned in contract.