members of the school board, the school district, school administrators, and school counselors. The
district court found that section 13--202 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13--202 (West 1992)) was the
applicable statute of limitations and that the plaintiff had to bring her cause of action within two years
after the alleged abuse occurred. Hononegah, 833 F. Supp. at 1375. In a footnote, the district court
noted that neither party had suggested that section 13--202.2 was applicable. Hononegah, 833 F.
Supp. at 1375 n.4. The district court, in dictum, then stated that section 13--202.2 was not
applicable. Hononegah, 833 F. Supp. at 1375 n.4.
We believe that Hobert provides a well-reasoned explanation why section 13--202.2 of the
Code is applicable to nonabusers. The Hononegah court's isolated comment to the contrary does not
persuade us to reach a different result. Furthermore, despite the defendants' protests, Hobert is not
distinguishable from the case at bar. The defendants insist that Hobert is not applicable because, in
that case, the plaintiff sought to hold the abuser's employer vicariously liable. As none of the
plaintiff's claims in the instant case are premised on vicarious liability, the defendants contend that
section 13--202.2 is not applicable. We disagree. Section 13--202.2 sets forth that it applies to
actions that are "based upon" sexual abuse. Here, the plaintiff's action is clearly "based upon" sexual
abuse that occurred against her. For the reasons explained in Hobert, section 13--202.2 applies to
the plaintiff's action.
Having determined that section 13--202.2 applies to the plaintiff's case, we must now address
whether that statute takes precedence over section 8--101 of the Tort Immunity Act, which also could
apply to the plaintiff's case. We note that the defendants argue that the plaintiff has forfeited this issue
because she does not acknowledge that either statute could apply; rather, she argues only that section
13--202.2 of the Code clearly applies. We find that the plaintiff has not forfeited this issue. In
reviewing the plaintiff's argument in its entirety, we note that she does set forth why she believes that
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.