(735 ILCS 5/2-604.1) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-604.1)
(Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held
unconstitutional)
Sec. 2-604.1.
Pleading of punitive damages.
In all actions
on account of bodily injury or physical damage to property, based on
negligence, or product liability based on any theory or doctrine,
where punitive damages are permitted
no complaint shall be filed containing a prayer for relief
seeking punitive damages. However, a
plaintiff may, pursuant to a pretrial motion and after a hearing before the
court, amend the complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive
damages. The court shall allow the motion to amend the complaint if the
plaintiff establishes at such hearing a reasonable
likelihood of proving
facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Any
motion to amend the complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking
punitive damages shall be made not later than 30 days after the close of
discovery.
A prayer for relief added pursuant to this Section shall not be
barred by lapse of time under any statute prescribing or limiting the time
within which an action may be brought or right asserted if the time
prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed.
(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. 2-604.1.
Pleading of punitive damages.
In all actions
on account of bodily injury or physical damage to property, based on
negligence, or product liability based on strict
tort liability,
where punitive damages are permitted
no complaint shall be filed containing a prayer for relief
seeking punitive damages. However, a
plaintiff may, pursuant to a pretrial motion and after a hearing before the
court, amend the complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive
damages. The court shall allow the motion to amend the complaint if the
plaintiff establishes at such hearing a reasonable
likelihood of proving
facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Any
motion to amend the complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking
punitive damages shall be made not later than 30 days after the close of
discovery.
A prayer for relief added pursuant to this Section shall not be
barred by lapse of time under any statute prescribing or limiting the time
within which an action may be brought or right asserted if the time
prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed.
(Source: P.A. 84-1431.)
|
(735 ILCS 5/2-604.2) Sec. 2-604.2. Requesting remedies from the court. (a) Except in personal injury actions, every count in every complaint and counterclaim must request specific remedies the party believes it should receive from the court. In a personal injury action, a party may not claim an amount of money unless necessary to comply with the circuit court rules about where a case is assigned. In a personal injury action, if a complaint is filed that contains an amount claimed and the claim is not necessary to comply with the circuit court rules about where a case is assigned, the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice on the defendant's motion or on the court's own motion. (b) A party may request remedies from the court in the alternative. A request for a remedy from the court that is not supported by allegations in the complaint or counterclaim may be objected to by motion or in the answering pleading. (c) Except in the case of default, the remedies requested from the court do not limit the remedies available. Except in the case of default, if a party seeks remedies other than those listed in the complaint or counterclaim, the court may, by proper order, and upon terms that may be just, protect the adverse party against prejudice by reason of surprise. In the case of default, if a remedy is sought in the pleading, whether by amendment, counterclaim, or otherwise, that is beyond what the defaulted party requested, notice shall be given to the defaulted party as provided by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 105. (d) The defendant is not prohibited from requesting from the plaintiff, by interrogatory, the amount of damages sought.
(Source: P.A. 101-403, eff. 1-1-20.) |
(735 ILCS 5/2-607) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-607)
Sec. 2-607.
Bills of particulars.
(a) Within the time a party is to
respond to a pleading, that party may, if allegations are so wanting in
details that the responding party should be entitled to a bill of
particulars, file and serve a notice demanding it. The notice shall point out
specifically the defects complained of or the details desired. The
pleader shall have 28 days to file and serve the bill of particulars, and
the party who requested the bill shall have 28 days to plead after being
served with the bill.
(b) If the pleader does not file and serve a bill of particulars within
28 days of the demand, or if the bill of particulars delivered is
insufficient, the court may, on motion and in its discretion, strike the
pleading, allow further time to furnish the bill of particulars or require
a more particular bill to be filed and served.
(c) If a bill of particulars, in an action based on a contract,
contains the statement of items of indebtedness and is verified by oath,
the items thereof are admitted except in so far as the opposite party
files an affidavit specifically denying them, and as to each item denied
states the facts upon which the denial is based, unless the affidavit is
excused by the court.
(d) If the party on whom a demand for a bill of particulars has been
made believes that the party demanding it is not entitled to the
particulars asked for, he or she may move the court that the demand be denied
or modified.
(Source: P.A. 86-646.)
|
(735 ILCS 5/2-613) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-613)
Sec. 2-613.
Separate counts and defenses.
(a) Parties may plead as
many causes of action, counterclaims, defenses, and matters in reply
as they may have, and each shall be separately designated and
numbered.
(b) When a party is in doubt as to which of two or more statements
of fact is true, he or she may, regardless of consistency, state them in the
alternative or hypothetically in the same or different counts or
defenses. A bad alternative does not affect a good one.
(c) Defenses to jurisdiction of the subject matter or in abatement
or in bar may be pleaded together, without waiving any defense so
pleaded, but the court may order defenses to jurisdiction of the subject
matter or in abatement to be tried first. An answer containing only
defenses to jurisdiction of the subject matter or in abatement does not
constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint,
counterclaim or third-party complaint.
(d) The facts constituting any affirmative defense, such as payment,
release, satisfaction, discharge, license, fraud, duress, estoppel,
laches, statute of frauds, illegality, that the negligence of a
complaining party contributed in whole or in part to the injury of which he
complains, that an
instrument or transaction
is either void or voidable in point of law, or cannot be recovered upon
by reason of any statute or by reason of nondelivery, want or failure of
consideration in whole or in part, and any defense which by other
affirmative matter seeks to avoid the legal effect of or defeat the
cause of action set forth in the complaint, counterclaim, or third-party
complaint, in whole or in part, and any ground or defense, whether
affirmative or not, which, if not expressly stated in the pleading,
would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, must be plainly
set forth in the answer or reply.
(Source: P.A. 84-624.)
|
(735 ILCS 5/2-616) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-616)
Sec. 2-616.
Amendments.
(a) At any time before final judgment amendments may be allowed on
just and reasonable terms, introducing any party who ought to have been
joined as plaintiff or defendant, dismissing any party,
changing the cause of action or defense or adding new causes
of action or defenses, and in any matter, either of form or substance,
in any process, pleading, bill of particulars or proceedings, which may
enable the plaintiff to sustain the claim for which it was intended to
be brought or the defendant to make a defense or assert a cross claim.
(b) The cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in any
amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute
or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may
be brought or right asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not
expired when the original pleading was filed, and if it shall appear
from the original and amended pleadings that the cause of action
asserted, or the defense or cross claim interposed in the amended
pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the
original pleading, even though the original pleading was defective in
that it failed to allege the performance of some act or the existence of
some fact or some other matter which is a necessary condition precedent
to the right of recovery or defense asserted, if the condition precedent
has in fact been performed, and for the purpose of preserving
the cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in the
amended pleading, and for that purpose only, an amendment to any
pleading shall be held to relate back to the date of the filing of the
original pleading so amended.
(c) A pleading may be amended at any time, before or after judgment,
to conform the pleadings to the proofs, upon terms as to costs and
continuance that may be just.
(d) A cause of action against a person not originally named a
defendant is not barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract
prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought
or right asserted, if all the following terms and conditions are met:
(1) the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original
action was commenced; (2) the person, within the time that the action might
have
been brought or the right asserted against him or her plus the time for
service permitted under Supreme Court Rule 103(b),
received such notice of the commencement
of the action that the person will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense
on the merits and knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning
the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against
him or her; and (3) it appears
from the original and
amended pleadings that the cause of action asserted in the amended
pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the
original pleading, even though the original pleading was defective in
that it failed to allege the performance of some act or the existence of
some fact or some other matter which is a necessary condition precedent
to the right of recovery when the condition precedent has in fact been
performed, and even though the person was not named originally as a
defendant. For the purpose of preserving the cause of action under those
conditions, an amendment adding the person as a defendant relates back
to the date of the filing of the original pleading so amended.
(e) A cause of action against a beneficiary of a land trust not
originally named a defendant is not barred by lapse of time under any
statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action
may be brought or right asserted, if all the following terms and conditions
are met: (1) the cause of action arises from the ownership, use or
possession of real estate, record title whereto is held by a land trustee;
(2) the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original action
was commenced; (3) the land trustee of record is named as a defendant; and
(4) the plaintiff proceeds with reasonable diligence subsequent to the
commencement of the action to serve process upon the land trustee, to
determine the identity of the beneficiary, and to amend the complaint to
name the beneficiary as a defendant.
(f) The changes made by this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly
apply to all complaints filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory
Act, and to complaints filed before the effective date of this amendatory Act
if the limitation period has not ended before the effective date.
(Source: P.A. 92-116, eff. 1-1-02.)
|
(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.)
|
(735 ILCS 5/2-622) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-622)
Sec. 2-622. Healing art malpractice.
(a) In any action, whether in
tort, contract or otherwise, in which the plaintiff seeks damages for
injuries or death by reason of medical, hospital, or other healing art
malpractice, the plaintiff's attorney or the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, shall file an affidavit, attached to the original and
all copies of the complaint, declaring one of the following:
1. That the affiant has consulted and reviewed the |
| facts of the case with a health professional who the affiant reasonably believes: (i) is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action; (ii) practices or has practiced within the last 6 years or teaches or has taught within the last 6 years in the same area of health care or medicine that is at issue in the particular action; and (iii) is qualified by experience or demonstrated competence in the subject of the case; that the reviewing health professional has determined in a written report, after a review of the medical record and other relevant material involved in the particular action that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of such action; and that the affiant has concluded on the basis of the reviewing health professional's review and consultation that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing of such action. If the affidavit is filed as to a defendant who is a physician licensed to treat human ailments without the use of drugs or medicines and without operative surgery, a dentist, a podiatric physician, a psychologist, or a naprapath, the written report must be from a health professional licensed in the same profession, with the same class of license, as the defendant. For affidavits filed as to all other defendants, the written report must be from a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches. In either event, the affidavit must identify the profession of the reviewing health professional. A copy of the written report, clearly identifying the plaintiff and the reasons for the reviewing health professional's determination that a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action exists, must be attached to the affidavit, but information which would identify the reviewing health professional may be deleted from the copy so attached.
|
|
2. That the affiant was unable to obtain a
|
| consultation required by paragraph 1 because a statute of limitations would impair the action and the consultation required could not be obtained before the expiration of the statute of limitations. If an affidavit is executed pursuant to this paragraph, the certificate and written report required by paragraph 1 shall be filed within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. The defendant shall be excused from answering or otherwise pleading until 30 days after being served with a certificate required by paragraph 1.
|
|
3. That a request has been made by the plaintiff or
|
| his attorney for examination and copying of records pursuant to Part 20 of Article VIII of this Code and the party required to comply under those Sections has failed to produce such records within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If an affidavit is executed pursuant to this paragraph, the certificate and written report required by paragraph 1 shall be filed within 90 days following receipt of the requested records. All defendants except those whose failure to comply with Part 20 of Article VIII of this Code is the basis for an affidavit under this paragraph shall be excused from answering or otherwise pleading until 30 days after being served with the certificate required by paragraph 1.
|
|
(b)
Where
a certificate and written report are required pursuant to this
Section a separate
certificate and written report shall be filed as to each
defendant who has been named in the complaint and shall be filed as to each
defendant named at a later time.
(c)
Where the plaintiff intends to rely on the doctrine of "res ipsa
loquitur", as defined by Section 2-1113 of this Code, the
certificate and
written report must state that, in the opinion of the reviewing health
professional, negligence has occurred in the course of medical treatment.
The affiant shall certify upon filing of the complaint that he is relying
on the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur".
(d)
When the attorney intends to rely on the doctrine of failure to
inform of the consequences of the procedure, the attorney shall certify
upon the filing of the complaint that the reviewing health professional
has, after reviewing the medical record and other relevant materials involved
in the particular action, concluded that a reasonable health professional
would have informed the patient of the consequences of the procedure.
(e)
Allegations and denials in the affidavit, made without reasonable
cause and found to be untrue, shall subject the party pleading them or his
attorney, or both, to the payment of reasonable expenses, actually incurred
by the other party by reason of the untrue pleading, together with
reasonable attorneys' fees to be summarily taxed by the court upon motion
made within 30 days of the judgment or dismissal. In no event shall the
award for attorneys' fees and expenses exceed those actually paid by the
moving party, including the insurer, if any. In proceedings under this
paragraph (e), the moving party shall have the right to depose and examine
any and all reviewing health professionals who prepared reports used in
conjunction with an affidavit required by this Section.
(f)
A reviewing health professional who in good faith prepares a report
used in conjunction with an affidavit required by this Section shall have
civil immunity from liability which otherwise might result from the
preparation of such report.
(g)
The failure
to file a certificate required by
this Section shall be
grounds for dismissal
under Section 2-619.
(h) (Blank).
(i) (Blank).
(Source: P.A. 97-1145, eff. 1-18-13; 98-214, eff. 8-9-13.)
|