Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort
         
 

November 2015

 

Illinois Asbestos Court Rules on Personal Jurisdiction in First Post-Daimler Decisions

 
 
             
 

For more information about this e-Alert, please contact:

 

Luke J. Mangan

Author

314.552.6869

Email | Bio

  

Brandy R. Harty

Author

618.692.2605

Email | Bio

  

Allison K. Sonneveld

Author

618.692.2622

Email | Bio

  

Additional Toxic and Mass Tort Leaders:

  

Dennis J. Dobbels

Practice Area Chair

816.360.4312

Email | Bio

  

Nicole C. Behnen

Practice Area Vice Chair

314.552.6825

Email | Bio

  

Farah S. Nicol

Practice Area Vice Chair

310.203.5301

Email | Bio

  

  

To learn more about our Toxic and Mass Tort Professionals, click here.

 

For current Intelligence or to learn more about our Toxic and Mass Tort practice, click here.

 

  


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  

SUBSCRIBE

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn.
   

In what is believed to be the Court’s first post-Daimler written decisions on the issue, Madison County, Illinois Judge Stephen A. Stobbs recently issued two decisions addressing whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over two different asbestos defendants. In both matters, the defendants asserted their business dealings in the state of Illinois did not rise to the level of subjecting them to personal jurisdiction.

These two decisions illustrate the Court’s propensity to address personal jurisdiction over each Defendant on a case-by-case basis, with dramatically different results. It seems that companies that had little to no contact with the State of Illinois or its residents would fare well in challenging the Court’s personal jurisdiction. However, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear mandate in Daimler, it appears the Madison County Court may construe a company’s normal business contacts with Illinois as that company’s efforts to become “at home” in the state, unwittingly subjecting that company to the Court’s jurisdiction.

Case #1: Court Finds Insufficient Evidence to Support Specific Jurisdiction; Rules for Defendant

On October 20, 2015, the Court granted Murco, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in the Voss v. Murco Wall Products, et al., Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 15-L-0055 and dismissed Murco from the case.

Murco, a Texas defendant, maintained that it did not conduct business or make sales of Murco products to Illinois; never shipped any asbestos-containing products to Illinois; and never held a license to do business in the state. Plaintiff argued that Mr. Voss, an Illinois resident, offered testimony that he purchased and used Murco joint compound in Illinois, and that the case was therefore one of specific jurisdiction. The court found that plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to support this claim. Plaintiff also argued that Illinois courts could permissibly exercise jurisdiction over Murco based on an alleged franchise agreement with another manufacturer of joint compound who did have Illinois sales and whose successor was separately sued in the case. The Court, citing the lack of evidence of any sales by Murco in Illinois during the relevant time period, granted Murco’s motion, holding that “[m]erely placing a product in the stream of commerce, even where it is foreseeable that the product would ultimately end up in the forum state, is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the forum state.”

Case #2: Court Keeps Company on the Hook; Denies Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

On November 4, 2015, the Court denied a large automotive manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Jeffs v. Anco Insulations, Inc., et al., Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 15-L-533. The Court rejected defendant’s argument that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman supported its position that there was no specific jurisdiction over it since there were no Illinois exposures to asbestos by the decedent. The decedent worked as a union insulator at various sites from 1968 to 1995, including at defendant’s plant in Michigan. In reaching its decision, the Court found that defendant had consented to jurisdiction in Illinois, consistent with the Illinois Business Corporation Act and the notions of fair play and substantial justice. The Court acknowledged that defendant was incorporated in Delaware and its principal place of business was in Michigan; however, the Court pointed out that the auto maker historically had a multitude of contacts with Illinois, including: regularly conducting business in Illinois since 1922; owning real property in Illinois; keeping a registered agent in Illinois; maintaining 156 dealers in Illinois and litigating matters throughout Illinois, including Madison County, without objecting to personal jurisdiction.

The Court further quoted from an amicus brief the company recently filed with the Illinois Supreme Court in Folta v. Ferro Engineering, wherein the company stated, it “conducts substantial business in Illinois and operates an assembly plant in Chicago that manufactures several vehicles… …[it] employs over 4,000 people at the Chicago Assembly Plant. In the past five years, [it] has invested over a half a billion dollars in its business operations in Illinois.” The Court subsequently found the company’s contacts with Illinois were substantial and such contacts exceeded the minimum contacts required by federal due process standards. The Court concluded the company has unequivocally consented to jurisdiction in Illinois and that the Court’s jurisdiction over it was proper.

For More Information

For more information on this or other legal concerns, please contact the author, a member of the Toxic & Mass Tort Litigation practice, or your Polsinelli attorney.

 
             

             
 

Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
             
 
 

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 750 attorneys in 18 offices, serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service and top five percent of firms for innovating new and valuable services*, the firm has risen more than 100 spots in Am Law's annual firm ranking over the past six years. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* BTI Client Service A-Team 2015 and BTI Brand Elite 2015

 
 
             
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2015 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli Toxic and Mass Tort Toxic and Mass Tort