or misrepresentation is “intentional.” 745 ILCS 10/2— 106 (West 1998). CDG’s tort claim falls within the purview of sections 2 — 104, 2 — 106, 2 — 109, and 2 — 201 of the Act; therefore, the Village is immune from liability. CDG’s heavy reliance on the opinion of the Appellate Court, Second District, in River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland, Park, 281 Ill. App. 3d 154 (1996), is misplaced. In River Park, the appellate court held that a municipality was not shielded from liability for conduct that was “corrupt, malicious, or otherwise undertaken in bad faith” under the immunity granted by section 2 — 104 of the Act. River Park, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 163. However, not only did the court in River Park not have the benefit of this court’s holdings in Chi , 88 Ill. App. 3d 47, 52 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Since 1970, however, the authority of the
recognizing corrupt or malicious motives exception to sections 2  103 2  201 and 2  205 recognizing corrupt or malicious motives exception to sections 2  201 and 2  206 of the act recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception recognizing such an exception recognizing exception