735 ILCS 5/2-621
Product liability actions
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/2-621)
(from Ch. 110, par. 2-621)
(Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held
unconstitutional)
Sec. 2-621.
Product liability actions.
(a) In any product liability
action based on any theory or doctrine commenced or maintained against a
defendant or defendants other than
the manufacturer, that party shall upon answering or otherwise pleading
file an affidavit certifying the correct identity of the manufacturer of
the product allegedly causing injury, death or damage. The commencement
of a product liability action based on any theory or doctrine against such
defendant or defendants shall toll
the applicable statute of limitation and statute of repose relative to the
defendant or defendants for purposes of asserting a strict liability in
tort cause of action.
(b) Once the plaintiff has filed a complaint against the manufacturer
or manufacturers, and the manufacturer or manufacturers have or are required
to have answered or otherwise pleaded, the court shall order the dismissal
of a product liability action based on any theory or doctrine against the
certifying defendant or
defendants, provided the certifying defendant or defendants are not within
the categories set forth in subsection (c) of this Section. Due diligence
shall be exercised by the certifying defendant or defendants in providing
the plaintiff with the correct identity of the manufacturer or manufacturers,
and due diligence shall be exercised by the plaintiff in filing an action
and obtaining jurisdiction over the manufacturer or manufacturers.
The plaintiff may at any time subsequent to the dismissal move to vacate
the order of dismissal and reinstate the certifying defendant or defendants,
provided plaintiff can show one or more of the following:
(1) That the applicable period of statute of | limitation or statute of repose bars the assertion of a cause of action against the manufacturer or manufacturers of the product allegedly causing the injury, death or damage; or |
(2) That the identity of the manufacturer given to | the plaintiff by the certifying defendant or defendants was incorrect. Once the correct identity of the manufacturer has been given by the certifying defendant or defendants the court shall again dismiss the certifying defendant or defendants; or |
(3) That the manufacturer no longer exists, cannot be | subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, or, despite due diligence, the manufacturer is not amenable to service of process; or |
(4) That the manufacturer is unable to satisfy any | judgment as determined by the court; or |
(5) That the court determines that the manufacturer | would be unable to satisfy a reasonable settlement or other agreement with plaintiff. |
(c) A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying
defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer even though full compliance
with subsection (a) of this Section has been made where the plaintiff can
show one or more of the following:
(1) That the defendant has exercised some significant | control over the design or manufacture of the product, or has provided instructions or warnings to the manufacturer relative to the alleged defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage; or |
(2) That the defendant had actual knowledge of the | defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage; or |
(3) That the defendant created the defect in the | product which caused the injury, death or damage. |
(d) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to grant a cause
of action on any legal theory
or doctrine, or to affect
the right of any person to seek and obtain indemnity or contribution.
(e) This Section applies to all causes of action accruing on or after
September 24, 1979.
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
(Text of Section WITHOUT the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held
unconstitutional)
Sec. 2-621.
Product liability actions.
(a) In any product liability action based in whole or in part on the
doctrine of strict liability in
tort commenced or maintained against a defendant or defendants other than
the manufacturer, that party shall upon answering or otherwise pleading
file an affidavit certifying the correct identity of the manufacturer of
the product allegedly causing injury, death or damage. The commencement
of a product liability action based in whole or
in part on the doctrine
of strict liability in tort against such defendant or defendants shall toll
the applicable statute of limitation and statute of repose relative to the
defendant or defendants for purposes of asserting a strict liability in
tort cause of action.
(b) Once the plaintiff has filed a complaint against the manufacturer
or manufacturers, and the manufacturer or manufacturers have or are required
to have answered or otherwise pleaded, the court shall order the dismissal
of a strict
liability in tort claim against the certifying defendant or
defendants, provided the certifying defendant or defendants are not within
the categories set forth in subsection (c) of this Section. Due diligence
shall be exercised by the certifying defendant or defendants in providing
the plaintiff with the correct identity of the manufacturer or manufacturers,
and due diligence shall be exercised by the plaintiff in filing an action
and obtaining jurisdiction over the manufacturer or manufacturers.
The plaintiff may at any time subsequent to the dismissal move to vacate
the order of dismissal and reinstate the certifying defendant or defendants,
provided plaintiff can show one or more of the following:
(1) That the applicable period of statute of limitation or statute of
repose bars the assertion of a strict liability in tort cause of action
against the manufacturer or manufacturers of the product allegedly causing
the injury, death or damage; or
(2) That the identity of the manufacturer given to the plaintiff by the
certifying defendant or defendants was incorrect. Once the correct identity
of the manufacturer has been given by the certifying defendant or defendants
the court shall again dismiss the certifying defendant or defendants; or
(3) That the manufacturer no longer exists, cannot be subject to the
jurisdiction
of the courts of this State, or, despite due diligence, the manufacturer
is not amenable to service of process; or
(4) That the manufacturer is unable to satisfy any judgment as determined
by the court; or
(5) That the court determines that the manufacturer would be unable to
satisfy a reasonable settlement or other agreement with plaintiff.
(c) A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying
defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer even though full compliance
with subsection (a) of this Section has been made where the plaintiff can
show one or more of the following:
(1) That the defendant has exercised some significant control over the
design or manufacture of the product, or has provided instructions or warnings
to the manufacturer relative to the alleged defect in the product which
caused the injury, death or damage; or
(2) That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product
which caused the injury, death or damage; or
(3) That the defendant created the defect in the product which caused
the injury, death or damage.
(d) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to grant a cause
of action in strict liability in tort or any other legal theory, or to affect
the right of any person to seek and obtain indemnity or contribution.
(e) This Section applies to all causes of action accruing on or after
September 24, 1979.
(Source: P.A. 84-1043.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product's…”
LaRoe v. Cassens & Sons, Inc. (2006)
“Applicability of 735 ILCS 5/2-621 to LaRoe’s Claims Under Illinois law, all entities in the chain of distribution for an allegedly defective product are subject to strict liability in tort.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2017)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by Pub.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product’s…”
Yount v. Shashek (2006)
“Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-621, there is a “seller’s exception” in products liability actions whereby any non-manufacturing defendant who has not contributed to the alleged defect is entitled automatically to dismissal from a products liability action: Product liability actions,…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2014)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff's right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product's distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel (2005)
“Leeco’s Motion to Dismiss Count VI Leeco moves to dismiss Count VI pursuant to the Illinois “Distributor Statute,” 735 ILCS 5/2-621, which provides that a non-manufacturing defendant in a product liability case may be dismissed if the defendant had nothing to do with the…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2015)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff’s right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product’s distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
Best v. Taylor MacHine Works (1997)
“" House Bill 20 consisted of a suggestion that the word "any" be changed to "a" in the first sentence of section 2-621 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1992)). More than two months later, on February 14, 1995, House Bill 20 was released to members of the…”
Ungaro v. Rosalco, Inc. (1996)
“MEMORANDUM OPINION KOCORAS, District Judge: This matter is before the court on defendant Fingerhut Corporation’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 735 ILCS 5/2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by -3- Pub.”
Westfield Ins. Co. v. BIRKEY'S FARM STORE (2010)
“Plaintiff has alleged no facts which would make 735 ILCS 5/2-621 inapplicable. As to the breach of warranty counts, the UCC obviously applies.”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(a) — 13 cases
Yount v. Shashek (2006)
“Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-621, there is a “seller’s exception” in products liability actions whereby any non-manufacturing defendant who has not contributed to the alleged defect is entitled automatically to dismissal from a products liability action: Product liability actions,…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2014)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff's right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product's distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2017)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by Pub.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product's…”
LaRoe v. Cassens & Sons, Inc. (2006)
“Applicability of 735 ILCS 5/2-621 to LaRoe’s Claims Under Illinois law, all entities in the chain of distribution for an allegedly defective product are subject to strict liability in tort.”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(b) — 16 cases
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product's…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2017)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by Pub.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product’s…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2014)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff's right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product's distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
LaRoe v. Cassens & Sons, Inc. (2006)
“Applicability of 735 ILCS 5/2-621 to LaRoe’s Claims Under Illinois law, all entities in the chain of distribution for an allegedly defective product are subject to strict liability in tort.”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(b)(1) — 8 cases
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2017)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by Pub.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product's…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product’s…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2015)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff’s right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product’s distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by -3- Pub.”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(b)(3) — 9 cases
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product's…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product’s…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2014)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff's right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product's distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2017)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by Pub.”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2015)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff’s right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product’s distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(b)(4) — 7 cases
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product's…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2017)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by Pub.”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994). Section 2-621 sets forth a scheme that allows a defendant that is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product at issue in a strict liability action to seek dismissal after it accurately certifies the identity of the product’s…”
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC (2018)
“China Vitamins argued it was entitled to dismissal of both the strict and negligent product liability counts pursuant to section 2-621 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West Supp. 1995), amended by -3- Pub.”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2014)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff's right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product's distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(b)(5) — 1 case
Ungaro v. Rosalco, Inc. (1996)
“MEMORANDUM OPINION KOCORAS, District Judge: This matter is before the court on defendant Fingerhut Corporation’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 735 ILCS 5/2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c) — 5 cases
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2014)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff's right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product's distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
Chraca v. U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company (2015)
“OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns the plaintiff’s right under section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 2010)) (Code) to reinstate a product liability claim against one of the product’s distributors, despite having served and obtained a default…”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(1) — 2 cases
— 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(2) — 3 cases
Ungaro v. Rosalco, Inc. (1996)
“MEMORANDUM OPINION KOCORAS, District Judge: This matter is before the court on defendant Fingerhut Corporation’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 735 ILCS 5/2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.”
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.
|