(735 ILCS 5/2-621) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-621)
    (Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 2-621. Product liability actions.
    (a) In any product liability action based on any theory or doctrine commenced or maintained against a defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer, that party shall upon answering or otherwise pleading file an affidavit certifying the correct identity of the manufacturer of the product allegedly causing injury, death or damage. The commencement of a product liability action based on any theory or doctrine against such defendant or defendants shall toll the applicable statute of limitation and statute of repose relative to the defendant or defendants for purposes of asserting a strict liability in tort cause of action.
    (b) Once the plaintiff has filed a complaint against the manufacturer or manufacturers, and the manufacturer or manufacturers have or are required to have answered or otherwise pleaded, the court shall order the dismissal of a product liability action based on any theory or doctrine against the certifying defendant or defendants, provided the certifying defendant or defendants are not within the categories set forth in subsection (c) of this Section. Due diligence shall be exercised by the certifying defendant or defendants in providing the plaintiff with the correct identity of the manufacturer or manufacturers, and due diligence shall be exercised by the plaintiff in filing an action and obtaining jurisdiction over the manufacturer or manufacturers.
    The plaintiff may at any time subsequent to the dismissal move to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate the certifying defendant or defendants, provided plaintiff can show one or more of the following:
        (1) That the applicable period of statute of limitation or statute of repose bars the
    
assertion of a cause of action against the manufacturer or manufacturers of the product allegedly causing the injury, death or damage; or
        (2) That the identity of the manufacturer given to the plaintiff by the certifying
    
defendant or defendants was incorrect. Once the correct identity of the manufacturer has been given by the certifying defendant or defendants the court shall again dismiss the certifying defendant or defendants; or
        (3) That the manufacturer no longer exists, cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the
    
courts of this State, or, despite due diligence, the manufacturer is not amenable to service of process; or
        (4) That the manufacturer is unable to satisfy any judgment as determined by the court;
    
or
        (5) That the court determines that the manufacturer would be unable to satisfy a
    
reasonable settlement or other agreement with plaintiff.
    (c) A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer even though full compliance with subsection (a) of this Section has been made where the plaintiff can show one or more of the following:
        (1) That the defendant has exercised some significant control over the design or
    
manufacture of the product, or has provided instructions or warnings to the manufacturer relative to the alleged defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage; or
        (2) That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused
    
the injury, death or damage; or
        (3) That the defendant created the defect in the product which caused the injury, death
    
or damage.
    (d) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to grant a cause of action on any legal theory or doctrine, or to affect the right of any person to seek and obtain indemnity or contribution.
    (e) This Section applies to all causes of action accruing on or after September 24, 1979.
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
 
    (Text of Section WITHOUT the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 2-621. Product liability actions.
    (a) In any product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort commenced or maintained against a defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer, that party shall upon answering or otherwise pleading file an affidavit certifying the correct identity of the manufacturer of the product allegedly causing injury, death or damage. The commencement of a product liability action based in whole or in part on the doctrine of strict liability in tort against such defendant or defendants shall toll the applicable statute of limitation and statute of repose relative to the defendant or defendants for purposes of asserting a strict liability in tort cause of action.
    (b) Once the plaintiff has filed a complaint against the manufacturer or manufacturers, and the manufacturer or manufacturers have or are required to have answered or otherwise pleaded, the court shall order the dismissal of a strict liability in tort claim against the certifying defendant or defendants, provided the certifying defendant or defendants are not within the categories set forth in subsection (c) of this Section. Due diligence shall be exercised by the certifying defendant or defendants in providing the plaintiff with the correct identity of the manufacturer or manufacturers, and due diligence shall be exercised by the plaintiff in filing an action and obtaining jurisdiction over the manufacturer or manufacturers.
    The plaintiff may at any time subsequent to the dismissal move to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate the certifying defendant or defendants, provided plaintiff can show one or more of the following:
    (1) That the applicable period of statute of limitation or statute of repose bars the assertion of a strict liability in tort cause of action against the manufacturer or manufacturers of the product allegedly causing the injury, death or damage; or
    (2) That the identity of the manufacturer given to the plaintiff by the certifying defendant or defendants was incorrect. Once the correct identity of the manufacturer has been given by the certifying defendant or defendants the court shall again dismiss the certifying defendant or defendants; or
    (3) That the manufacturer no longer exists, cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, or, despite due diligence, the manufacturer is not amenable to service of process; or
    (4) That the manufacturer is unable to satisfy any judgment as determined by the court; or
    (5) That the court determines that the manufacturer would be unable to satisfy a reasonable settlement or other agreement with plaintiff.
    (c) A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer even though full compliance with subsection (a) of this Section has been made where the plaintiff can show one or more of the following:
    (1) That the defendant has exercised some significant control over the design or manufacture of the product, or has provided instructions or warnings to the manufacturer relative to the alleged defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage; or
    (2) That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage; or
    (3) That the defendant created the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage.
    (d) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to grant a cause of action in strict liability in tort or any other legal theory, or to affect the right of any person to seek and obtain indemnity or contribution.
    (e) This Section applies to all causes of action accruing on or after September 24, 1979.
(Source: P.A. 84-1043.)