The court did not determine whether the suit could be maintained as a class action. The appellate court affirmed. ( 130 Ill. App.3d 173.) We granted Szajna's petition for leave to appeal (94 Ill.2d R. 315).

Sanyo relies on several recent appellate court cases which are distinguishable. See Spiegel v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 125 Ill. App.3d 897, 81 Ill.Dec. 238, 466 N.E.2d 1040 (1st Dist. 1984); Crest Container Corp. v. R.H. Bishop Co., 111 Ill. App.3d 1068, 67 Ill.Dec. 727, 445 N.E.2d 19 (5th Dist. 1982); Frank's Maintenance Engineering, Inc. v. C.A. Roberts Co., 86 Ill. App.3d 980, 42 Ill.Dec. 25, 408 N.E.2d 403 (1st Dist. 1980); also Bagel v. American Honda Motor Co., 132 Ill.App.3d 82, 87 Ill.Dec. 453, 477 N.E.2d 54 (1st Dist. 1985); Szajna v. General Motors Co., 130 Ill.App.3d 173, 85 Ill.Dec. 669, 474 N.E.2d 397 (1st Dist. 1985). These cases establish that privity of contract is not yet dead in Illinois.

There are exceptions to the privity requirement when a manufacturer makes specific promises to consumers through advertising or label information. See In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F.Supp.3d 772, 807 (N.D. Ill. 2016); Szajna v. Gen. Motors Corp., 474 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ill.App.Ct. 1st Dist. 1985) (“The exception dealt with by the court is limited to cases where a remote manufacturer knows the identity, purpose and requirements of the dealer's customer and manufactured or delivered goods specifically to meet those requirements.”)

In so holding, the Szajna court implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged that an express warranty claim could be maintained under UCC 2-313(a)(1) without privity. Ampat/Midwest, 1988 WL 53222, at *3 n. 2 (citing Szajna v. Gen. Motors Corp., 474 N.E. 2d 397 (Ill. App. 1985), rev'd on other grounds 503 N.E. 2d 760 (Ill. 1986)). Similarly, descote's reliance on Caterpillar is misplaced.

The Rothe decision, however, conflicts with at least three other recent decisions in which other panels of the same court held that the privity requirement has continuing vitality in Illinois and applied that requirement to bar claims against remote manufacturers for breach of implied warranty. SeeSzanja v. General Motors Corp., 130 Ill.App.3d 173, 85 Ill.Dec. 669, 672, 474 N.E.2d 397, 400 (1985), leave to appeal allowed, 106 Ill.2d 24 (1985) (argued Sept. 25, 1985) (" Szanja " ); Bagel v. American Honda Motor Co., 132 Ill.App.3d 82, 87 Ill.Dec. 453, 458, 477 N.E.2d 54, 59 (1985); Spiegel v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 125 Ill.App.3d 897, 81 Ill.Dec. 238, 241, 466 N.E.2d 1040, 1043 (1984). In light of these decisions, the Court cannot be confident that the decision of the Rothe panel foreshadows accurately the views of the Supreme Court of Illinois.

For purposes of a 2-615 motion, the judge was required to accept the preceding allegations and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom as true. Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 130 Ill. App.3d 173, 176, 474 N.E.2d 397 (1985). The defendants claim Ms. Wallace conceded Maryville stood in loco parentis regarding Waketta when she plead Maryville "was licensed by the State of Illinois to house, care for and educate children [including Waketta]."

• 2, 3 In reviewing an order of the trial court dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the reviewing court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, and must determine whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a cause of action. ( Szajna v. General Motors Corp. (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 173, 474 N.E.2d 397.) A court is concerned only with the questions of law presented by the pleadings. ( Fancil v. Q.S.E. Foods, Inc. (1975), 60 Ill.2d 552, 554, 328 N.E.2d 538.)

Although the supreme court in Suvada approved as part of plaintiffs' damages the costs they incurred in repairing their tractor-trailer unit, and the appellate court has sometimes recognized property damage claims due to defectively manufactured products by remote users who purchased the products through third parties ( e.g., Admiral Oasis Hotel Corp. v. Home Gas Industries, Inc. (1965), 68 Ill. App.2d 297, 216 N.E.2d 282 (defectively manufactured air conditioners); Rhodes Pharmacal Co. v. Continental Can Co. (1966), 72 Ill. App.2d 362, 219 N.E.2d 726 (defectively manufactured aerosol cans), in other cases of economic loss based upon breach of implied warranty, however, our appellate courts have maintained the privity requirement ( Bagel v. American Honda Motor Co. (1985), 132 Ill. App.3d 82, 88, 477 N.E.2d 54; Spiegel v. Sharp Electronics Corp. (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 897, 899-900, 466 N.E.2d 1040). General Motors relies heavily on this court's recent decision in Szajna v. General Motors Corp. (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 173, 176-77, 474 N.E.2d 397, appeal allowed (1985), 106 Ill.2d 560, which echoes this requirement. These cases, however, did not consider public policy ramifications in retaining the privity requirement.