Suburban property owners who have been trying since 2009 to hold public entities responsible for flooding on their properties thought a 2016 decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, overturning a long-held legal doctrine used by local governments to ward off lawsuits for decades, might provide them some relief.
That hope was dashed Thursday by the Illinois Supreme Court, which found the so-called rule still applies to cases filed prior to its abolition.
The group of homeowners filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Park Ridge, Maine Township, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, after severe flooding in 2008 damaged their property. They alleged the storm sewer problems that led to the flooding could be traced to a series of public works decisions and errors going back to the 1960s. They also claimed the damage to their property amounted to taking the land for public use without compensation.
Five versions of the complaint were dismissed over the next seven years. The defendants successfully pleaded protection under the state’s public duty rule. That rule, a legal doctrine, had been used for decades to generally protect governments and government workers from lawsuits, by providing those agencies had a duty to the general public at large, but not to protect any specific individuals.
The plaintiffs’ sixth attempt was dismissed in 2015 based on the public duty rule. The plaintiffs kept the action alive by arguing the court had not addressed the takings claim. While that claim was being briefed, the state Supreme Court abolished the public duty rule through its decision in Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District.
The court took another look at the plaintiffs’ complaint and found the new law established by Coleman should not be applied retroactively.
That position, however, was reversed by a state appeals panel, which ruled the Supreme Court's decision in Coleman should be applied retroactively, as well.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that decisions of a court are generally understood to apply both retroactively and prospectively, but there are exceptions, Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote in the majority decision.
First, Coleman overturned decades of precedent, Theis said.
Second, declining to apply Coleman retroactively does not defeat the purpose of the newly defined public duty rule.
Third, the justices determined it would be inequitable to apply Coleman to this case because the local government defendants had relied upon the public duty rule in motions to dismiss for years.
“[B]etween Feb. 11, 2009, when the initial complaint was filed, and Jan. 13, 2012, when the sixth amended complaint was filed, numerous motions to dismiss had been filed by defendants,” Theis wrote. “Their position on the public duty rule ultimately prevailed, and the trial court dismissed the complaint against them prior to this court’s issuance of Coleman.”
Theis pointed out that all the alleged conduct in the complaint took place while the public duty rule was in effect.
“If Coleman were applied retroactively, it would result in this 11-year-old case requiring even more litigation, including a possible change in the legal theory of the case advanced by defendants, due to the unexpected abolishment of the long-standing public duty rule,” she wrote. “Factors favor limiting Coleman to a prospective-only application in this case.”
The high court upheld the trial court’s finding that the public duty rule applied in the case. The court also found no compelling evidence that the flood damage equated to the taking of property and upheld the trial court’s dismissal of that claim.
Justice Thomas L. Kilbride took no part in the court’s decision. The remaining justices were in agreement with Theis.
The homeowners were represented before the Illinois Supreme Court by attorney Timothy H. Okal, of the firm of Spina, McGuire & Okal P.C., of Elmwood Park.
Defendants Maine Township and the city of Park Ridge were represented by attorneys with the firms of O’Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook LLC, of Northbrook, and Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins Ltd., of Chicago. The MWRD was represented by its in-house counsel.