Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Kemp Drainage District v. State of Illinois

44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 333 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1992-02-06 No. 91-CC-1747
Disposition: (No. 91-CC-1747-Claim dismissed.) Agency: Illinois Department of Transportation
Cite as: Kemp Drainage District v. State of Illinois, 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 333 (1992)
General Court of Claims 44 dismissed 1990s Kemp Drainage District v. State of Illinois 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 333 1992-02-06 (No. 91-CC-1747-Claim dismissed.) /opinions/v44-p0439-1/

KEMP DRAINAGE D I ~ R IBCYTUSER No. 1 I NBOWDRE TOWNSHIP, IN DOUGLAS COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for economic loss due to the Department of Transportation's allegedly wrongful permit requirement. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim sounded in tort for solely economic loss, which is not recoverable under Illinois law.

Claim type: Other

Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.8(d)

Cases cited: Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. (1982), 91 Ill.2d 69; Foxcroft Townhouse Owners v. Roffmun Rosner Corp. (1983), 96 Ill.2d 150

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. JuRIsorcTIoN-when court of Claims has jurisdiction over damage claims sounding in tort. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over claims for damages sounding in tort if a like cause of action would lie against a private person or corporation in a civil suit.
  2. TORTS-nO recovery in tort for solely economic loss. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort for solely economic loss, and there must be a claim of personal injury or damage to property.
  3. SAME-damages sought from State for negligently requiring Claimant to apply for permit-claim dismissed. The State’s motion to dismiss was granted in a claim alleging that the Department of Transportation wrongly and negligently required the Claimant drainage district to apply for a permit to perform work in an area that was not within the Department’s jurisdiction, thereby causing the district to unnecessarily expend funds and to suffer costly delays, since the claim sought recovery for economic loss in tort and, as such, was not an action within the Court’s jurisdiction.

OPINION

SOMMER, J.

This cause came to be heard on a motion to dismiss filed by the Respondent. Oral argument was held before the Court on November 12,1991.

In 1983, the Kemp Drainage District filed an application with the Illinois Department of Transportation requesting a permit to perform work in the channel and floodplain of Deer Creek, Douglas County. The Department denied the application on June 12, 1984. A [*334] judicial review of the denial was had in the circuit court; the court held on April 1,1985, that Deer Creek was not a navigable stream, and, therefore, was not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. There was an unsuccessful appeal in 1985 and other activity in the circuit court ending on December 19, 1988. This claim was filed on December 18, 1990.’

The Claimant, Kemp Drainage District, pleads that the Department of Transportation wrongly and negligently required the District to apply for a permit causing the District to expend monies for engineering fees unnecessarily, and also, thereby, causing costly delays.

The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over claims for damages sounding in tort “if a like cause of action would lie against a private person or corporation in a civil suit.” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.8(d).

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort for solely economic loss. There must be a claim of personal injury or damage to property. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v . National Tank Co. (1982), 91 111.2d 69; Foxcroft Townhouse Owners v . Roffmun Rosner Corp. (1983), 96 I11.2d 150.

It is our finding that the Claimant is seeking to recover for economic loss on a theory of negligence or tort. Thus, the Claimant is pleading a cause of action not within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss of the Respondent is granted, and this claim is dismissed.

Official volume 44 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1992 – July 1, 1991–June 30, 1992)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.