13-217.Reversal or dismissal.

Article XIII. Limitations · Part 2. Personal Actions · Last amended 1995 · Last verified July 20, 2026

The official Illinois Compiled Statutes database prints two separate versions of this section — a Public Act later held unconstitutional alongside the text as it read before that amendment; both are shown below.

In one sentenceLets a plaintiff refile within one year, or the remaining limitations period if longer, after a favorable judgment is reversed or a federal court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, even if the original deadline expired during the case.

Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/13-217

Text sizeWith the changes made by P.A. 89-7 (held unconstitutional)

Without the changes made by P.A. 89-7 (held unconstitutional)

735 ILCS 5/13-217. With the changes made by P.A. 89-7 (held unconstitutional)

In the actions specified in Article XIII of this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if judgment is entered for the plaintiff but reversed on appeal, or if there is a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the judgment is entered against the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such action, the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after such judgment is reversed or entered against the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue. No action which is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff or dismissed for want of prosecution by the court may be filed where the time for commencing the action has expired.

This amendatory Act of 1995 applies to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.

735 ILCS 5/13-217. Without the changes made by P.A. 89-7 (held unconstitutional)

In the actions specified in Article XIII of this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if judgment is entered for the plaintiff but reversed on appeal, or if there is a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the judgment is entered against the plaintiff, or the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such action, the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after such judgment is reversed or entered against the plaintiff, or after the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue.

End

Plain-English Summary

This savings statute keeps a plaintiff from losing a claim entirely because of a procedural setback rather than a loss on the merits. If a judgment for the plaintiff is reversed on appeal, or a plaintiff's verdict is overturned on a motion in arrest of judgment, or a federal district court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, the plaintiff — or his or her heirs, executors, or administrators — may commence a new action within one year, or within the remaining limitations period, whichever is greater, after that judgment is reversed, entered against the plaintiff, or the case is dismissed. This works even if the original limitations deadline expired while the first action was pending.

Illinois prints two versions of this section because Public Act 89-7 — the 1995 tort-reform act — was later struck down as unconstitutional. The version enacted by that act narrows the refiling right: it states that no action voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or dismissed for want of prosecution, may be refiled once the original time for commencing the action has already expired. The version predating that act instead lists voluntary dismissal and want-of-prosecution dismissal as grounds that qualify for the same one-year, or remaining-period, refiling right as a reversal.

Because Public Act 89-7 was held unconstitutional, the pre-89-7 version — the one that includes voluntary dismissal and want-of-prosecution dismissal among the qualifying grounds for refiling — is the version currently in force.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if I win at trial but the judgment is reversed on appeal?

You may commence a new action within one year, or the remaining limitations period, whichever is greater, after the reversal.

Does this refiling right apply if a federal court dismisses my case for lack of jurisdiction?

Yes. It also applies when a United States District Court dismisses the action for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue.

Can I refile after voluntarily dismissing my own case?

Under the currently controlling version of this section, yes — voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff is one of the listed grounds for the one-year refiling right.

Why does this section exist in two different versions?

Because Public Act 89-7, the 1995 tort-reform act that narrowed the refiling right, was later held unconstitutional, leaving the earlier, more generous version as the one in force.

Does this section extend the deadline even if it already expired while the first case was pending?

Yes. The refiling right applies whether or not the time limitation for bringing the action expired during the pendency of the first action.

Amendment History

With the changes made by P.A. 89-7 (held unconstitutional)(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)

Without the changes made by P.A. 89-7 (held unconstitutional)(Source: P.A. 87-1252.)

Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: illinois savings statute one year refilingillinois statute of limitations after case dismissedrefiling a lawsuit after voluntary dismissal illinoisillinois statute of limitations reversal on appeal