The plaintiff, John W. VonHoldt, Jr., brought the present action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant, Barba & Barba Construction, Inc. The complaint alleged that defendant breached an implied warranty of habitability in its construction of a structural addition to an existing residence. * * *

Background

In August 1982, defendant constructed a multilevel addition to a single family residence in Glenview, Illinois. Before the addition, the residence consisted of approximately 2,300 square feet. After the addition, the residence consisted of approximately 3,200 square feet. More than 11 years later, on November 5, 1993, plaintiff purchased the residence.

Shortly after taking occupancy, plaintiff noticed a deflection of the wood flooring at the partition wall separating the master bedroom from an adjoining bathroom. This deflection created a depression in the floor plane. Plaintiff maintained that, due to the thickness of the carpet, the depression was nearly concealed. An investigation revealed that the addition was not constructed in accordance with the architectural plans approved by the Village of Glenview or the Glenview Building Code. Specifically, the partition wall between the master bedroom and the bathroom was constructed as a bearing element supporting a portion of both the roof and ceiling construction. This variance resulted in excessive stress on the floor joists and inadequate support for a portion of the roof and ceiling causing a greater than expected floor deflection.

The plaintiff instituted the present action on March 28, 1994, by filing a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County. Plaintiff sought recovery from the defendant for breach of an implied warranty of habitability. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint * * * for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On September 29, 1994, the trial judge dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice.

* * * Plaintiff subsequently appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. * * * Thus, it refused to extend protection under the doctrine to a construction setting not involving a builder-vendor of a new residence. [Citation.] We allowed plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal.

Discussion

The Implied Warranty’s Applicability to Additions

On appeal to this court, plaintiff contends that the appellate court erred in rejecting his claim of breach of an implied warranty of habitability. Plaintiff asks us to extend the implied warranty of habitability to a cause of action by a subsequent purchaser for damages against a builder constructing a later addition to a house. Defendant argues that the protection of the implied warranty of habitability should be limited to actions against builder-vendors and that plaintiff’s action, if any exists, is time-barred. For the reasons expressed below, we find that the implied warranty of habitability extends to cases brought by subsequent purchasers involving subsequent additions to homes.

The implied warranty of habitability is a judicially created doctrine designed to avoid the unjust results of caveat emptor and the doctrine of merger. [Citation.] Initially, Illinois courts applied the doctrine to the sale of new homes to protect innocent purchasers who did not possess the ability to determine whether the house they purchased contained latent defects. [Citation.]

* * * [T]he owner needs this protection because he is making a major investment, in many instances the largest single investment of his life. [Citation.] Additionally, the owner usually relies on the integrity and skill of the builder, who is in the business of building houses. [Citation.] Finally, the owner has a right to expect to receive a house that is reasonably fit for use as a residence. [Citation.]

* * * Illinois courts have [subsequently] defined and extended the circumstances under which claims based on an implied warranty of habitability can be recognized. [Citation] (builder-vendor need not be mass producer, just one engaged in the business of building such that the sale is of a commercial nature); [Citation] (house built upon foundation of an old house still qualified as a ‘‘new’’ home); [Citation] (doctrine applies to person who erected a house manufactured by another company and built on the plaintiff’s land); [Citation] (latent defect in common land can affect habitability); [Citation] (innocent purchaser could bring an action against a subcontractor when he had no recourse to the builder-vendor and he had sustained a loss in his home due to a latent defect); [Citation] (doctrine applies against developer-seller of new condominium unit).

Plaintiff claims that the implied warranty of habitability should now be extended to include actions against a builder brought by a subsequent purchaser for latent defects in a later addition to a home. In [citation], this court held that the defendants were not subject to the implied warranty of habitability for a condominium-conversion project. The court held that the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability did not apply because the refurbishing and renovation of the project had not been significant. [Citation.] In the present case, the builder made a major addition to an existing home. We now hold that, when a builder makes a significant addition to a previously built home, an action for damages resulting from latent defects affecting habitability exists under the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability.

An owner claiming that latent defects exist in a major addition to a structure should be provided the same protection for the addition as that given to the [original] owners * * *. In both cases, the owner of the house usually has little knowledge regarding the construction. The purchaser of both a completed home and an addition places the same trust in the builder that the structure being erected is suitable for living. Further, the ordinary buyer is not in a position to discover hidden defects in a structure even through the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care.

We must next determine whether the plaintiff can bring this action even though he is a subsequent purchaser. In [citation], this court extended the implied warranty of habitability to subsequent purchasers of a new home, finding that there was no need for privity of contract because the warranty of habitability exists independently of the contract for sale. Because the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability has been extended to actions by subsequent purchasers of new homes, we can see no reason why the doctrine should not be extended to actions by subsequent purchasers of a home for latent defects in a significant addition to the home made prior to the time of sale.

***

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that actions for damages from latent defects in the construction of a significant structural addition to an existing residence can be brought against the builder by subsequent purchasers under the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability. However, because here the action was time-barred * * * plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed. We therefore affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

Affirmed.