Misnomer, Mistaken Identity and Rule 103(b) – Illinois Standards

The misnomer and mistaken identity doctrines each involve situations where a plaintiff has sued a defendant too late.   Misnomer is basically a spelling error. The plaintiff can correct a misspelled defendant’s name at any time, even after judgment.  735 ILCS 5/2-401(b).  

With mistaken identity, the analysis is more intricate: the court applies Code Section 2-616(d) to determine whether the time-barred complaint relates back to the original (timely) filing date. 

In Guiffrida v. Boothy’s Palace Tavern, Inc., 2014 IL App (4th) 131008, the court examines the misnomer and mistaken identity doctrines and Rule 103(b)’s diligence in service rules. There, the plaintiff didn’t serve the right defendant until several weeks after the personal injury limitations period lapsed.  The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely on and plaintiff appealed.

Held: Affirmed.


In a case of misnomer – a drafting error, basically – the amended complaint that names the proper defendant relates back to the filing date of the original complaint. 

With mistaken identity, Code Section 2-616(d) applies.  The plaintiff must show (1) the original complaint was timely filed;

(2) the person intended to be sued received notice of suit within the time the action might have been brought against him plus the time for service permitted under Supreme Court Rule 103(b);

(3) the person to be sued received notice of the lawsuit and won’t be prejudiced in maintaining a defense to the case;

 (4) that person knew, or should have known, that he was the intended target of the plaintiff’s suit, and

(5) the amended and original complaints both stem from the same transaction or occurrence. 

To determine whether misnomer or mistaken identity applies, the court looks to the plaintiff’s objective manifestation of intent as to whom it meant to sue.  If the person named in a complaint actually exists but has no interest in the lawsuit, mistaken identity applies and the plaintiff must satisfy the Code Section 2-616(d) factors. (¶¶ 36-37). 

Here, mistaken identity applied.  The plaintiff sued the wrong party.   She sued a corporation that actually existed and served that corporation’s registered agent.  But that corporation wasn’t involved in the underlying facts giving rise to the lawsuit.  

Plaintiff didn’t realize she served the wrong corporation and wrong agent until after the limitations period expired.

Supreme Court Rule 103(b) allows a court to dismiss a suit where a plaintiff fails to exercise diligence in serving a defendant. 

The factors a court considers in determining whether a party has been diligent in trying to serve a defendant include

(1) defendant’s actual knowledge of the pending suit;

(2) whether the defendant suffered any prejudice by the late service;

(3) the length of time it takes to obtain service on the defendant;

(4) the plaintiff’s activities and knowledge of defendant’s location;

(5) the ease with which the plaintiff could determine defendant’s location;

(6) any special circumstances that affected plaintiff’s efforts; and

(7) whether the defendant was actually served.  (¶ 49).

Here, the Court looked to the plaintiff’s pattern of delay and lackadaisical litigation efforts in finding that the target defendant didn’t have notice of plaintiff’s suit within the time contemplated by Rule 103(b).  

The court noted that plaintiff filed suit improperly in Federal court and later sued in the wrong state court venue.  She also named and served the wrong corporate defendant.  Later, after the statute of limitations period expired, plaintiff served the right corporate agent but still sued under the wrong defendant name.

And even though the proper corporate defendant received notice of the suit within 43 days of the expiration of the limitations period, the Court found that, on the whole, plaintiff failed to exercise diligence under Rule 103(b). 


This case shows that a court can look at more than just the bare number of days it took to serve a defendant when assessing a plaintiff’s diligence as part of the relation-back inquiry. 

The case especially illustrates the importance of (a) suing the proper corporate defendant, (b) in the proper venue; (c) serving the right defendant before the statute of limitations period ends.

Information-Technology Firm Not An ‘Information’ Provider Under Negligent Misrepresentation Economic Loss Exception (ND IL)

computer crashPublications International Limited v. Mindtree Limited, 2014 WL 3687316 (N.D.Ill. 2014) looks at whether a Web site developer is financially responsible for  a customer’s multiple system crashes.

The plaintiff on-line consumer products reviewer sued the defendant information-technology firm after the plaintiff’s site kept malfunctioning.  The plaintiff sued for breach of the parties’ written consulting agreement and joined claims for wilfull and wanton conduct and fraudulent concealment. 

The plaintiff alleged that defendant’s negligence in installing and maintaining the site resulted in decreased customer traffic resulting in lost revenue.  The defendant moved to dismiss all claims except for the breach of contract count.  

Result: Motion granted. 


The Court rejected plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim failed because it was premised on a warranty – to comply with the standard of care of an experienced IT company – that didn’t exist in the parties’ contract. 

In Illinois, an express warranty is contractual in nature and the specific warranty text will govern the parties rights and duties.  Here, the consulting contract contained broad disclaimers of express and implied warranties as well as an integration clause. 

Illinois courts enforce warranty disclaimers as long as they’re conspicuous (e.g. bold, ALLCAPS language) and integration clauses are routinely applied to prevent contracting parties from trying to change a contract’s clear wording by citing prior oral statements related to the contract’s subject matter. (**2-3).

The Court struck the plaintiff’s negligence and willful and wanton counts based on the economic loss rule.   The economic-loss doctrine prevents a party from suing in tort to recover economic damages that are based on a breach of contract. 

So, if a contract involving a defective product exists, and the plaintiff alleges that the product defect caused disappointed commercial expectations, the plaintiff’s remedy lies in breach of contract; not in negligence or in another tort theory.

The Court found that the a contract clearly governed the parties’ relationship and the plaintiff’s claimed damages to its on-line presence, goodwill,  reputation and its brand were purely intangible and economic in nature

An exception to the economic loss rule involves an action alleging negligent misrepresentation.  This exception applies where a defendant is “in the business of supplying information for the guidance of others in their business transactions.”  Other economic loss exceptions include the fraud and sudden and dangerous occurrence exceptions.

Here, the negligent misrepresentation exception didn’t apply.  The defendant was hired to provide a product (software) and services (tech assistance) – not information (this in spite of the ironic “information-technology” title).  

Since the contract’s primary purpose was for the defendant to supply  software and technical services to the plaintiff, the negligent misrepresentation exception wasn’t triggered.  Any information provided by the defendant was purely tangential or “secondary” to the main purpose of the contract.

The Court also nixed the plaintiff’s “extra-contractual” duty argument: that defendant owed a duty of care outside the scope of the written contract.  The only situations that an extra-contractual duty applies are in professional malpractice suits (e.g., a legal malpractice case) where the defendant owes a fiduciary duty to a comparatively vulnerable plaintiff. 

The Court noted that there was no case-sanctioned practice or custom of allowing professional malpractice claims against IT developers and no law that saddled them with fiduciary duties to their customers.


– Warranty disclaimers are valid and enforced so long as they’re clear and conspicuous;

– The economic loss rule bars tort claims against a defendant who provides a mix of goods and information if the information is secondary to the supplier of goods or services.