2-621.Product liability actions.

Section 2-621 protects non-manufacturer defendants -- retailers, distributors, and the like -- caught up in a product-liability suit over a defect they didn't create. Subsection (a) lets such a defendant file an affidavit certifying the correct identity of the manufacturer, which tolls the applicable statute of limitations and statute of repose as to that manufacturer -- but only for purposes of asserting a strict-liability-in-tort cause of action against it, not for every theory the plaintiff might otherwise pursue. Subsection (b) then requires the court to dismiss the certifying defendant once the plaintiff has sued the manufacturer and the manufacturer has answered or been required to, provided the certifying defendant doesn't fall into one of the exceptions in subsection (c) -- and both sides have to move with due diligence, the defendant in identifying the manufacturer correctly, the plaintiff in suing and obtaining jurisdiction over it.

That dismissal isn't always final. The plaintiff can move to vacate it and bring the non-manufacturer defendant back in if the limitations period would now bar a claim against the manufacturer, if the identification turned out to be wrong, if the manufacturer no longer exists or can't be served or reached by Illinois courts, or if the manufacturer can't satisfy a judgment or a reasonable settlement.

Subsection (c) is the flip side: a court won't dismiss the certifying defendant at all if the plaintiff shows that defendant had significant control over the product's design or manufacture, gave the manufacturer instructions or warnings about the alleged defect, had actual knowledge of the defect, or created the defect itself. Subsection (d) makes clear the section doesn't create a new cause of action or affect indemnity or contribution rights, and subsection (e) applies the section to causes of action accruing on or after September 24, 1979.

This section carries two versions in the underlying statute. The version tagged "WITH P.A. 89-7" applies to a "product liability action based on any theory or doctrine." The version tagged "WITHOUT P.A. 89-7" is narrower, applying only to an action "based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort," and its dismissal and reinstatement provisions in (b) and (c) are phrased around a "strict liability in tort claim" rather than a product-liability action generally. Subsection (d) reflects the same split in its disclaimer language: the WITH version says the Section is not to be construed to grant a cause of action "on any legal theory or doctrine," while the WITHOUT version says it is not to be construed to grant a cause of action "in strict liability in tort or any other legal theory" -- neither version creates a new claim, and both equally leave indemnity and contribution rights untouched. The substantive structure -- certification, tolling, dismissal, the reinstatement grounds, and the exceptions in (c) -- is otherwise the same in both versions.