## Facts

- An aircraft sales company contracted with an engine-overhaul business to overhaul a single-engine aircraft’s engine.
- The overhaul business subcontracted the turbocharger overhaul to another company, received the turbocharger back, reassembled the engine, and returned the aircraft to its customer.
- The turbocharger was alleged to be defective because it contained automotive parts rather than aircraft parts.
- The overhaul business billed its customer a flat rate for the overhaul; the invoice did not list a separate cost or profit for the subcontracted turbocharger work.
- Years later, a purchaser of the aircraft experienced an in-flight engine power loss and made a forced landing, allegedly caused by the defective turbocharger, resulting in damage.
- The purchaser sued the overhaul business and the turbocharger subcontractor, asserting strict products liability (and a fraud claim against the subcontractor).
- The subcontractor was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and was not part of the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether an engine overhauler that selected a subcontractor, incorporated the subcontracted turbocharger into the reassembled engine, and supplied the completed unit can be treated as a participant in the chain of distribution subject to strict products liability.
2. Whether dismissal under Illinois Code of Civil Procedure § 2-619 was proper where the defendant argued it was a “mere installer” and therefore outside strict products liability as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the § 2-619 dismissal of the strict-liability claim against the engine overhauler and remanded for further proceedings.
- Accepting the pleadings and reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, the court held the defendant could not be deemed a “mere installer” as a matter of law.
- The defendant’s flat-rate, integrated overhaul transaction and its control over selecting and incorporating the turbocharger supported treating it as having placed the component into the stream of commerce.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability in Illinois can apply to downstream entities beyond manufacturers when their commercial role in supplying a product is sufficiently seller-like.
- A defendant that controls the selection, procurement, and incorporation of a component and supplies the finished product as part of its commercial offering may fall within the distributive chain for strict-liability purposes, even if it also provides services.
- A service provider is less likely to face strict liability when it merely installs a part supplied by the customer, without a seller-like role in supplying the product.
- A § 2-619 motion is improper where the asserted “affirmative matter” (e.g., “mere installer” status) does not defeat the claim as a matter of law given the pleaded facts and reasonable inferences.

## Conclusion

The court held that an engine overhauler who arranged and integrated a subcontracted turbocharger overhaul into a flat-rate engine overhaul could be subject to strict products liability as a participant in the chain of distribution, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.


Prompt Air, Inc. v. Firewall Forward, Inc., 707 N.E.2d 235 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)