Find Legal Information

From approximately 1946 until 1982, the decedent, Robert King, worked for variouspipefitting contractors at large construction jobsites in the Chicago area. As a pipefitter, thedecedent installed pipe that connected to vessels and heat exchangers. Defendants, Paul J. KrezCompany (Krez) and Brand Insulations, Inc. (Brand), were insulation contractors at some ofdecedent's jobsites. As insulation contractors, Krez and Brand insulated the pipes that wereinstalled by the pipefitters. Plaintiff, the decedent's widow, asserts that the decedent came intocontact with asbestos-containing insulation products at a total of five different jobsites; however,plaintiff's appeal addresses only three of these jobsites: Equitable Building in Chicago, Illinois;Union Oil Refinery in Lemont, Illinois; and the Dresden Powerhouse. According to plaintiff,Krez and Brand worked as insulation contractors at these three jobsites between the years 1964and 1970. In June of 1995, the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-relateddisease, and died a few months later. Plaintiff contends that her husband's death is attributable tohis exposure to the asbestos-containing products installed by Krez and Brand at theaforementioned jobsites.

Defendants Krez and Brand filed motions for summary judgment in the circuit court ofCook County, Illinois. The trial court summarily granted the Krez and Brand motions forsummary judgment. Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's ruling on these motions. We affirm thetrial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

In granting the motions for summary judgment in favor of Krez and Brand and againstplaintiff, the trial court determined that the plaintiff's case is barred by section 13-214(b) of theCode of Civil Procedure, the construction statute of repose. (735 ILCS 5/13-214(b) (West 1998)). Although the trial court also found that plaintiff failed to show that the decedent was exposed toany product attributable to either Krez or Brand, we need not consider that issue. Further, the trialcourt never ruled upon the issue of whether section 13-214(b) is constitutional under the Illinoisand United States Constitutions. An alleged error is not preserved for review if the trial court failsto rule upon it. McCullough v. Gallaher & Speck, 254 Ill. App. 3d 941 (1993). As a result, thiscourt need not consider whether the construction statute of repose is constitutional under theIllinois and United States Constitutions. Thus, the only issues addressed on appeal are whetherplaintiff's case is barred by the construction statute of repose and whether the discovery rule isapplicable to the construction statute of repose.

Section 13-214 provides in pertinent part:

"