## Facts

- Myron Eichengreen bought a home in Glencoe, Illinois in 1983 that had a security/fire-alarm system installed and serviced by Apollo Central Protection, Inc. (later Rollins, Inc.).
- In 1985, Eichengreen added a detached bath house sharing a wall with the residence but not accessible from inside the main house; it contained natural-gas appliances, including a water heater and an exterior grill.
- In August 1988, Apollo sent Eichengreen a letter estimating specified fire-alarm work and devices (including a digital dialer transmitter, a smoke detector, multiple heat detectors, and certain signals) for an installed price.
- The parties treated the letter, with Eichengreen’s handwritten changes, as the final written contract; Eichengreen crossed out certain items, changed the price, added battery-related notations, and added that the “system [was] to be in good working order and guaranteed for at least 12 months.”
- The 1988 writing did not expressly state that the system would protect all buildings on the property or that devices would be installed in the bath house.
- In September 1995, a fire originated in the bath house near the grill, causing damage.
- Eichengreen sued Rollins alleging (1) breach of the 1988 contract and (2) negligence based on the alleged failure of the fire-alarm system to detect or respond to the bath house fire.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Rollins on both counts, and Eichengreen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1988 letter-contract, as modified, required Rollins to provide fire detection/protection for the bath house where the fire originated.
2. Whether Rollins owed a tort duty, independent of the contract, to install or maintain fire-detection equipment covering the bath house.
3. Whether the record showed a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the contract and negligence claims.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Rollins on both breach of contract and negligence.
- The court held the written contract did not obligate Rollins to provide fire protection for the bath house.
- The court held the negligence claim failed because Rollins had no duty to protect areas outside the contractual undertaking.
- Because the dispositive facts were established by the final written agreement and the absence of any contractual coverage for the bath house, no triable fact issue existed.

## Legal Principles

- When parties reduce their agreement to a final written contract, the parties’ intent is determined from the contract’s language, and courts will not infer obligations not expressed in the writing.
- A detailed written list of devices and work scope limits the service provider’s obligations; a party’s asserted broader intent does not create ambiguity where the writing does not reasonably support it.
- A negligence duty arising from a contractual relationship is generally coextensive with the obligations undertaken; tort law will not be used to expand a defendant’s responsibilities beyond the contract absent an independent duty.
- Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a nonmovant’s subjective understanding, unsupported by the contract, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the written alarm-service agreement as the complete measure of Rollins’ obligations, concluding it did not cover the detached bath house, and it rejected tort liability that would effectively enlarge the contract’s scope; summary judgment for Rollins was therefore affirmed on both contract and negligence theories.


Eichengreen v. Rollins, Inc., 325 Ill. App. 3d 517, 757 N.E.2d 952 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)