ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/13-204 (2026)

Contribution and indemnity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/13-204) (from Ch. 110, par. 13-204)
    Sec. 13-204. Contribution and indemnity.
    (a) In instances where no underlying action seeking recovery for injury to or death of a person or injury or damage to property has been filed by a claimant, no action for contribution or indemnity may be commenced with respect to any payment made to that claimant more than 2 years after the party seeking contribution or indemnity has made the payment in discharge of his or her liability to the claimant.
    (b) In instances where an underlying action has been filed by a claimant, no action for contribution or indemnity may be commenced more than 2 years after the party seeking contribution or indemnity has been served with process in the underlying action or more than 2 years from the time the party, or his or her privy, knew or should reasonably have known of an act or omission giving rise to the action for contribution or indemnity, whichever period expires later.
    (c) The applicable limitations period contained in subsection (a) or (b) shall apply to all actions for contribution or indemnity and shall preempt, as to contribution and indemnity actions only, all other statutes of limitation or repose, but only to the extent that the claimant in an underlying action could have timely sued the party from whom contribution or indemnity is sought at the time such claimant filed the underlying action, or in instances where no underlying action has been filed, the payment in discharge of the obligation of the party seeking contribution or indemnity is made before any such underlying action would have been barred by lapse of time.
    (d) The provisions of this Section, as amended by Public Act 88-538, shall be applied retroactively when substantively applicable, including all pending actions without regard to when the cause of action accrued; provided, however, that this amendatory Act of 1994 shall not operate to affect statutory limitations or repose rights of any party which have fully vested prior to its effective date.
    (e) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any action for damages in which contribution or indemnification is sought from a party who is alleged to have been negligent and whose negligence has been alleged to have resulted in injuries or death by reason of medical or other healing art malpractice.
(Source: P.A. 88-538; 89-626, eff. 8-9-96.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Barragan v. Casco Design Corp., 837 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barragan v. Casco Design Corp., 837 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 6× “ether section 13-207 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-207 (West 2000)), which allows counterclaims to proceed even when otherwise barred by a statute of limitations, should have been applied to save Osman's responsive counterclaim for contribution that was…”
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bowman, 893 N.E.2d 583 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 15× “Rather, the Bowmans' liability emanates from the refusal to perform their obligation of indemnification under the written indemnification agreement after claims were made against the underlying performance bonds.”
Washington Courte Condo. Ass'n-Four v. WASHINGTON-GOLF Corp., 643 N.E.2d 199 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 3× “13-204 (now 735 ILCS 5/13-204 (West 1992)).) The relevant portions of the amendment provide in pertinent part: "Sec.”
Guzman v. C.R. Epperson Constr., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 1069 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 2× “) See 735 ILCS 5/13-204 (West 1996). The amendment provisions indicate that the trigger date for filing a third party action is the date of service or of knowledge of the wrongful action or omission, whichever is later.”
Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 841 (N.D. Ill. 1998). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, we reaffirm our original finding that Verto’s third party contribution action against Montgomery is time-barred under 735 ILCS 5/13-204 and therefore deny Verto’s motion to reconsider.”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 3× “(735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 1994).) Section 13-204 preempts all other statutes of limitation as to indemnity actions.”
933 Van Buren Condo. Assoc. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 143490 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “See 735 ILCS 5/13-204(c) (West 2012). Here, like in 15th Place Condominium, WVB’s counterclaims against Total arise out of breach of contract, and specifically the breach of a written indemnification clause in a contract.”
Danzig v. Univ. of Chicago Charter Sch. Corp., 2019 IL App (1st) 182187 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 4× “¶ 20 On appeal, the dance academy first argues that dismissal of its counterclaim as untimely was improper pursuant to section 13-204(b) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 2016)) because that counterclaim was filed within two years of the date when the dance academy was…”
Kadlec v. Sumner, 2013 IL App (1st) 122802 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “204(b) and (c) which allows a contribution action to be filed within two years “after [a] party seeking contribution or indemnity has been served with process in the underlying action” (735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 2012)), “but only to the extent that the claimant in an underlying…”
15th Place Condo. Ass'n v. South Campus Dev. Team, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 122292 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 2008). However, in this case, because of the existence of the cause of action accrual agreement, the two- year period began to run on the date of substantial completion.”
Kadlec v. Sumner, 2013 IL App (1st) 122802 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “204(b) and (c), which allow a contribution action to be filed within two years “after [a] party seeking contribution or indemnity has been served with process in the underlying action,” (735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 2012)) , “but only to the extent that the claimant in an…”
Guerino v. Depot Place P'ship, 730 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. 2000). “735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 1996). The trial court granted the motions to dismiss with regard to the contribution actions, but refused to dismiss Depot Place's third-party action against Concrete Doctor for breach of contract and indemnification, which was subject to a 10-year…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— 735 ILCS 5/13-204(a) — 2 cases
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bowman, 893 N.E.2d 583 (Ill. 2008). “Rather, the Bowmans' liability emanates from the refusal to perform their obligation of indemnification under the written indemnification agreement after claims were made against the underlying performance bonds.”
Brooks v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
— 735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) — 25 cases
Barragan v. Casco Design Corp., 837 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 2005). “ether section 13-207 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-207 (West 2000)), which allows counterclaims to proceed even when otherwise barred by a statute of limitations, should have been applied to save Osman's responsive counterclaim for contribution that was…”
Guzman v. C.R. Epperson Constr., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 1069 (Ill. 2001). “) See 735 ILCS 5/13-204 (West 1996). The amendment provisions indicate that the trigger date for filing a third party action is the date of service or of knowledge of the wrongful action or omission, whichever is later.”
Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 841 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “Accordingly, we reaffirm our original finding that Verto’s third party contribution action against Montgomery is time-barred under 735 ILCS 5/13-204 and therefore deny Verto’s motion to reconsider.”
15th Place Condo. Ass'n v. South Campus Dev. Team, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 122292 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 2008). However, in this case, because of the existence of the cause of action accrual agreement, the two- year period began to run on the date of substantial completion.”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “(735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 1994).) Section 13-204 preempts all other statutes of limitation as to indemnity actions.”
— 735 ILCS 5/13-204(c) — 13 cases
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bowman, 893 N.E.2d 583 (Ill. 2008). “Rather, the Bowmans' liability emanates from the refusal to perform their obligation of indemnification under the written indemnification agreement after claims were made against the underlying performance bonds.”
Barragan v. Casco Design Corp., 837 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 2005). “ether section 13-207 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-207 (West 2000)), which allows counterclaims to proceed even when otherwise barred by a statute of limitations, should have been applied to save Osman's responsive counterclaim for contribution that was…”
933 Van Buren Condo. Assoc. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 143490 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “See 735 ILCS 5/13-204(c) (West 2012). Here, like in 15th Place Condominium, WVB’s counterclaims against Total arise out of breach of contract, and specifically the breach of a written indemnification clause in a contract.”
Danzig v. Univ. of Chicago Charter Sch. Corp., 2019 IL App (1st) 182187 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “¶ 20 On appeal, the dance academy first argues that dismissal of its counterclaim as untimely was improper pursuant to section 13-204(b) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 2016)) because that counterclaim was filed within two years of the date when the dance academy was…”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “(735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 1994).) Section 13-204 preempts all other statutes of limitation as to indemnity actions.”
— 735 ILCS 5/13-204(d) — 3 cases
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “(735 ILCS 5/13-204(b) (West 1994).) Section 13-204 preempts all other statutes of limitation as to indemnity actions.”
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Baur's Opera House (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Guzman v. C.R. Epperson Constr., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
— 735 ILCS 5/13-204(e) — 1 case
Manier v. Dalpra (S.D. Ill. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.