ALTON COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 11, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $41,897.10 from the State for indemnification for work performed on a shop building after faulty underground electric cables were discovered. The court denied the claim because Claimant failed to exhaust other remedies against the electrical contractor, architectural firm, and general contractor before bringing the claim to the Court of Claims.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.24-5
Cases cited: Lyons v. State (1981), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268; Peccarelli v. State (1978), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 105
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (FRANK A. HESS, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- JuRlsDIcrroN-alternative remedies must be exhausted. Pursuant to section 25 of the Court of Claims Act and the Court of Claims Rules, any person filing a claim in the Court of Claims must, before seeking a final determination of the claim, exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery, regardless of whether they are administrative, legal or equitable.
- CONTRACr-Chim for indemnification for work performed on school building-other remedies not exhausted-claim denied. A claim seeking indemnification for work performed by the Claimant school district on a building in a career development center to correct damage caused by a negligently installed underground electric cable was denied on the ground the Claimant failed to exhaust its remedies against the general contractor, the negligent electrical contractor or the architectural firm responsible for supervising the contractor, notwithstanding the Claimant’s contention that an exception to the exhaustion of remedies requirement applied because those parties were agents of the State, since the record established that under the circumstances of the case no exception applied, and the Claimant should have pursued all other remedies before presenting a claim to the Court of Claims.
The Claimant, Alton Community Unit School
District No. 11,brought this complaint seeking recovery [*34] from the State in the amount of $41,897.10. At the hearing, Claimant’s Group Exhibit 2 indicated that total
I
damages were $41,590.74.
Claimant is the occupant of a facility known as the J. B. Johnson Career Development Center (also known as the Alton Area Career Development Center.) The facility was constructed pursuant to a joint venture between Claimant and the Capital Development Board. The certificate of final completion was issued on August 3, 1976. The facility consisted of two buildings, namely, the academic buil’ding and the shop building. This claim is for indemnification for work performed by Claimant on the shop building.
On September 12, 1978, there was a fire at the academic building. It was determined that the damage had been caused by negligently installed underground electric cables. J. F. Incorporated, the contractor for the electrical work at the facility, agreed with Claimant that the cables would be replaced at the expense of J. F. Incorporated’s insurance company. Subsequently, the wiring leading to the shop building was tested and found to be faulty.
On September 19, 1978, the work began on replacing the underground electrical cables for the shop building. All cables leading from the shop building to the transformer were replaced.
There is no evidence that Claimant has pursued, or sought, recovery from the electrical contractor, J. F. Incorporated. The record also does not indicate whether Claimant attempted to recover damages from Keeney & Stolze, the architectural firm responsible for the design and having substantial supervisory responsibility during the construction of the facility. There is no evidence that [*35] Claimant pursued recovery from the general contractor, S. M. Wilson.
The State argues that the Claimant has failed to exhaust all alternative remedies prior to bringing this claim. Section 25 of the Court of Claims Act states, “Any person who files a claim in the court shall, before seeking final determination of his or her claim, exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery whether administrative or judicial ’ ’ *” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.24-5.) In addition, the Court of Claims Rules specify that “the Claimant shall before seeking final determination of his claim before the Court of Claims exhaust all other remedies, whether administrative, legal or equitable.” 74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.60.
In support of its argument, the State cites Lyons v . State (1981), 34 Ill. Ct. C1.268. In reply, Claimant argues that this case is an exception to the exhaustion of remedies requirement. Claimant cites Peccarelli v . State (1978), 32 Ill. Ct. C1. 105 in support of the proposition. We reject Claimant’s position that under Peccarelli, the electrical contractor, the architectural firm and the general contractor are agents of the State.
In Peccarelli, the Claimant entered into a contract with a non-State agency to conduct a study of the authority of State’s Attorneys. The contract was funded by the Law Enforcement Commission, a State agency, and the non-State agency was required to follow Commission (and State) guidelines and spend the money for the study.
Based upon the record established in this matter, the Court finds that Claimant should have pursued all other remedies prior to the presentation of this claim. The Court finds the decision in Lyons to be controlling on [*36]
this issue and the decision in Peccarelli to be clearly
distinguishable.
It is therefore ordered that this claim be, and hereby
is, denied.