The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. Holderman, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 13, 2006, plaintiffs United Laboratories, Inc. ("United Labs") and Julie Anne Benson (as directed Trustee on behalf of United Labs' Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP I") and United Labs' Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP II")) (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a nine-count Amended Complaint alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conspiracy, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and state common law. The Amended Complaint was directed against defendants Willamette Management Associates Inc. ("Willamette"), Cole Taylor Bank ("Cole Taylor"), and former United Labs' Board of Directors members Maureen R. Savaiano,*fn1 Donald F. Savaiano,*fn2 Robert G. Difino, and Jamie Savaiano Maloney ("the Savaiano Defendants").
Plaintiffs' claims generally arise out of the events surrounding the creation of the ESOP II in August, 1996.*fn3 One pivotal step in the creation of the ESOP II was the sale of United Labs stock to the ESOP II by the Savaiano Defendants, on August 28, 1996 (the "Transaction"). Plaintiffs allege that, in this Transaction, the ESOP II paid more than fair market value for the Savaiano Defendants' shares. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs accuse the Savaiano Defendants of engaging in prohibited transactions (Count II), breaching their fiduciary duties to the ESOP II and United Labs (Counts III-V), unjust enrichment (Count VI), and conspiracy (Count IX). Cole Taylor is alleged to have facilitated the Transaction pursuant to its role as Trustee to the ESOP II. On June 5, 2006, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss Cole Taylor as a defendant in this case.
Despite the dismissal of Cole Taylor as a defendant, the Savaiano Defendants filed a Third-Party Complaint against Cole Taylor on October 27, 2006. (Dkt. No. 79). Cole Taylor has moved to dismiss the Savaiano Defendants' Third-Party Complaint in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 127). For the reasons discussed below, Cole Taylor's Motion to Dismiss the Savaiano Defendants' Third-Party Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Count II is dismissed. Counts IV and V are dismissed insofar as they are asserted by Maureen Savaiano, Donald Savaiano, Robert Difino, and Jamie Savaiano Maloney. All other counts remain pending.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint generally need only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In other words, the complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (May 21, 2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). As long as the factual allegations in the complaint "raise a right to relief above the speculative level," the complaint will withstand a 12(b)(6) challenge. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965; see also Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007).
In conducting its analysis, the court assumes that all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are true. Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). However, a plaintiff can plead himself out of court if a complaint includes facts that undermine its own allegations. Kolupa v. Roselle Park Dist., 438 F.3d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 2006). Any exhibits attached to a complaint are considered to be a part of the pleadings. Moranski v. Gen. Motors Corp., 433 F.3d 537, 539 (7th Cir. 2005).
In their Third-Party Complaint, the Savaiano Defendants generally assert that they relied upon Cole Taylor's representations "that the purchase price for their shares was fair and legal, that the transaction complied with ESOP II and ERISA requirements and that the conditions precedent in the Stock Purchase Agreement were satisfied." (Third-Party Compl. ¶ 33). Accordingly, the Savaiano Defendants contend that "Cole Taylor is liable to the Savaiano Defendants if the Savaiano Defendants have any liability to the Plaintiffs relating to the Transaction." (Id. ¶ 7). Specifically, the Savaiano Defendants allege that Cole Taylor breached the Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Stock Purchase Agreement" (Dkt. No. 79, Ex. 4)) (Count I), that Cole Taylor breached the Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Trust Agreement (the "Trust Agreement" (Dkt. No. 79, Ex. 3)) (Count II), and that Cole Taylor was negligent in both valuing and effecting the purchase of the Savaiano Defendants' shares (Count III). Furthermore, the Savaiano Defendants argue that Cole Taylor owes them an implied duty of indemnification (Count IV) or, in the alternative, a duty of contribution (Count V).
1. Statute of Limitations on Breach of Contract Claims
At the outset, Cole Taylor argues that both Counts I and II of the Third-Party Complaint are time-barred, due to the applicable statute of limitations for breach of contract claims. Under Illinois law, actions on written contracts "shall be commenced within 10 years next after the cause of action accrued." 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-206.*fn4 "[F]or contract actions and torts arising out of contractual relationships, the cause of action ordinarily accrues at the time of the breach of contract, not when a party sustains damages." Ind. Ins. Co. v. Machon & Machon, Inc., 753 N.E.2d 442, 445 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2001) (citing W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Sal E. Lobianco & Son Co., 370 N.E.2d 804, 807 (Ill. 1977)).
In this case, the relevant breaches of contract are alleged to have occurred on or about August 28, 1996, or the date the Transaction was executed. Because the Savaiano Defendants did not file their Third-Party Complaint until October 27, 2006, Cole Taylor argues that the breach of contract claims fall outside of the ten-year limitation period. In response, the Savaiano Defendants contend that the discovery rule applies to their breach of contract claims, such that the statute of limitations accrued only when the Savaiano Defendants knew or should have known that they had been injured and that their injury was wrongfully caused. See Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer, 633 N.E.2d 627, 630-31 (Ill. 1994)). The Savaiano Defendants argue that they did not know of Cole Taylor's potential breaches of the Stock Purchase Agreement and Trust Agreement until United Labs filed its Complaint against the Savaiano Defendants on March 15, 2006. If the statute of limitations did not begin to run until March 15, 2006, the breach of contract claims would be considered timely filed on October 27, 2006.
In support of their assertion that a breach of contract claim accrues at the time the contract is breached, Cole Taylor directs the court to the case of Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 651 N.E.2d 1132, 1135 (Ill. 1995). Cole Taylor is correct to cite Hermitage for the proposition that "the cause of action ordinarily accrues at the time of the breach of contract, not when a party sustains damages." Id. (citing Lobianco, 370 N.E.2d at 807) (emphasis added). However, the Hermitage court goes on to recognize that "[l]iteral application of the statute of limitations, however, sometimes produced harsh results, and in response, the discovery rule was developed." Id. The purpose of the discovery rule is "to avoid mechanical application of a statute of limitations in situations where an individual would be barred from suit before he was aware that he was injured." Id. The Hermitage court also made clear that the discovery rule can apply in situations where discovery of the injury occurred before the statute of limitations has fully run. Id. at 1136-38.
Cole Taylor argues in its reply brief that the Savaiano Defendants have presented no cases in which the discovery rule was applied to a breach of contract claim. (Dkt. No. 144 at 2). Hermitage, however, is just such a case. In Hermitage, the Illinois Supreme Court applied the discovery rule to a claim alleging breach of an oral agreement, recognizing that the discovery rule is applicable to any type of claim, unless there is "a contrary indication of legislative ...