Zerjal v. Daech & Bauer Const., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the statutory scheme addressed the licensing and regulation of - 14 - No. 1-23-1912 home inspectors but did not address inspectors’ liability and, thus, the legislature showed no intention to prohibit or limit exculpatory clauses in home inspection contracts
• affirming the grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for any claims exceeding the amount stated in an enforceable exculpatory clause
• “[C]ommon carriers are responsible for their patrons’ physical safety for which there is no second chance if a mistake should occur ***.”
• “Since the legislature had the opportunity to prohibit or limit exculpatory clauses in home inspection contracts but did not, we decline the opportunity as well”
• “The relevant provision is in paragraph 11 and states, ‘[A]ny legal action must be brought within two (2) years from the date of the [home] inspection.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).