BCM Law, P.C. Prevails on Behalf of Municipal Client Based on Statute of Limitations

August 2026

Emma L. Knowles

BCM Law, P.C. Emma L. Knowles recently secured a dismissal of a contribution claim against a third-party defendant school district client based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Rather than the 2-year statute of limitations usually applicable to contribution claims, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois strictly applied the one-year statute of limitations rule for local public entities, as described by the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court in 2019. See Danzig v. Univ. of Chi. Charter School Corp., et al, 2019 IL App (1st) 182187.

In the third-party defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(c), Ms. Knowles successfully argued that because Plaintiff did not file a claim against any of the parties, including the school district, her employer, within the one-year statute of limitation prescribed in 745 ILCS 10/8-101 (Commonly known as the “Tort Immunity Act”), the direct defendants in the case could not bring third-party contribution claims against it. The rule in Danzig applied despite the fact that employee Plaintiffs typically bring workers’ compensation claims against their employers in front of the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission, not tort claims in state or federal court. As will be explained in further detail below, the initial right of an employee to file a cause of action against the employer within the limitation period was the key factor in the decision, regardless of whether the employee ever exercised that right. This is true even if the limitation period expired before direct defendants were served with the underlying complaint.

In the case handled by BCM, Plaintiff was a maintenance custodian for the third-party defendant school district. She was injured while unloading risers from a delivery truck on school property, in the course and scope of her employment, when one of Defendants’ drivers allegedly negligently operated the liftgate on the delivery truck, causing a chain or pin to hit her in the face, subsequently knocking her to the ground, causing serious injury to her right shoulder. The shipment in question was brokered by another Defendant.

Plaintiff filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim in the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission against her employer in October of 2023. Her workers’ compensation claim was subsequently settled. She filed a third-party tort claim against two Defendants, the shipper and the shipment broker, in January of 2025, just shy of the two-year statute of limitations for such claims. The direct Defendants filed their complaints for contribution against third-party defendant in December of 2025 and January of 2026. The IL Code of Civ. Pro. (735 ILCS 5/13-204(b)) usually gives direct defendants two years from the date they are served with the underlying complaint to file contribution claims against employers. However, Danzig seemingly recognized an important exception that applies to the school district in 735 ILCS 5/13-204(c).

Defendant #1 argued that the IL Workers’ Compensation Act (“IWCA”) expressly prohibits employees from suing their employers outside of workers’ compensation proceedings, and as such, Plaintiff never had a cause of action against third-party defendant outside the IWCA. Defendants further argued that Danzig and the present case were dissimilar such that third-party defendant could not rely on Danzig. Defendant #2 argued further that the third-party defendant was subject to liability in tort at the time of Plaintiff’s initial injury, based on the application of Delaney v. McDonald’s Corp., 634 N.E.2d 749 (Ill. 1994). Finally, Defendant #2 argued that Danzig is wrongly decided because it does not address the interplay between Sec. 13-204 and Sec. 13-207. Third-party defendant countered that Defendants’ arguments should fail because Delaney does not address the effect of the exclusive remedy provision of the IWCA on tort liability, Danzig is good law, and that third-party defendant was subject to liability in tort such that it could have been sued by Plaintiff before she filed her workers’ compensation claim, pursuant to Doyle v. Rhodes, 461 N.E.2d 382 (1984).

The Court rejected all Defendants’ arguments out of hand, stating that “Section 13-204(c) says what it says…” and that “Danzig, illustrates its effect.” If Plaintiff here had chosen to file a tort complaint against her employer directly instead of filing a claim in the workers’ compensation commission, she would have had one year from the date her cause of action accrued, or January of 2024 under the Tort Immunity Act, which provides a one-year statute of limitations. Instead, Plaintiff did not file her underlying third-party complaint until January of 2025, almost two years after her cause of action accrued and after the one-year statute of limitation expired.

The court also rejected the argument that Plaintiff never had a cause of action against her employer because of the IWCA. Instead, the court held Plaintiff had an action against them between January of 2023 and January of 2024, or until she exercised her exclusive remedy under the IWCA, whichever came first. Had Plaintiff timely filed a tort claim instead of filing a workers’ compensation claim, third-party defendant would have raised the affirmative defense of workers’ compensation exclusive remedy. However, third-party defendant’s liability in tort, and consequently Plaintiff’s cause of action against it, existed until that point.

Since the court applied Danzig strictly, and Plaintiff did not timely file a third-party case against her employer, the direct Defendants had no cause of action for contribution against third-party defendant. The dismissal of the school district on motion led to a very favorable lien recovery for the client at settlement of the underlying case.

The strict application of a defendant friendly rule to governmental entities is a welcome change to “business as usual” in civil litigation. The rule applies even if the party is an employer, and even if the one-year statute of limitation expired before the direct defendants were sued. All qualifying local public entities who are added as third-party defendants in contribution should analyze their case to determine whether Danzig can be applied in their favor to obtain dismissal.