AN OVERVIEW: THE ILLINOIS HOME REPAIR ACT - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

The Illinois Home Repair Act [815 ILCS 513/25] is getting a lot of attention these days because of some conflicting Appellate Court opinions interpreting the Act’s requirements. If you are an Illinois contractor engaged in home repair and remodeling, here is a very basic primer on what you need to do in order to comply with the Act:
1) If the project is going to cost more than $1000, there is to be a written contract, setting forth the total cost. Additionally, the business name and address of the person[s] engaged in the work is to be provided. 815 ILCS 513/15.
2) Notify the client if the contract is going to impact the client’s right to recovery. Specifically if the contract provides that disputes are to be resolved via arbitration or the right to a jury trial is waived, the contractor is to specifically notify the prospective client of those provisions. Although it is not set forth in the statute, it would be prudent to have a separate document spelling out the arbitration and jury waiver rights. 815 ILCS 513/15.1[a].
3) Document the client’s decisions as to the arbitration provision or jury waiver in writing. The statute suggest having the client simply write “accept” or “reject” in the margins wherever the provisions appear in the contract. 815 ILCS 513/15.1[b]. That’s a little informal. You might want to have a separate document formally demonstrating the client’s election as to those issues.
4) Give the client a copy of the “Home Repair: Know Your Consumer Rights” pamphlet provided by the Attorney General. And, have the client sign and date a “Consumer Rights Acknowledgement Form” also provided by the Attorney General. 815 ILCS 513/20 [a].
5) Last, but not least, be sure that you are properly insured. The Act requires contactors to carry certain levels of public liability and property damage insurance.815 ILCS 513/25.
Please note: the above list is NOT comprensive, and is only meant to be a general discussion of what the Act requires. Be sure to check with an experienced attorney before undertaking any remodeling projects

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.