Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Cumulative Exposure Theory of Causation
In a landmark opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court held that plaintiffs may no longer rely on the “cumulative exposure theory” to establish causation in cases alleging asbestos-related injuries. Specifically, the Court held that a theory of causation based only upon the cumulative exposure to various asbestos-containing products does not meet Ohio’s “substantial factor” test. Instead, plaintiffs must prove that the conduct of each particular defendant was a substantial factor in causing the disease based on specific evidence of the manner, proximity, frequency, and length of exposure. See Schwartz v. Honeywell International., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-474 (opinion will open in a new window).
In Schwartz, the plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Kathleen Schwartz, was exposed to asbestos through her father’s 33-year career as an electrician and through her father's personal automotive work. The evidence showed that, as an electrician, her father worked with asbestos products almost every day, was regularly exposed to clouds of asbestos dust, drove home from work in the family car, and played with Kathleen without first changing his clothes. The evidence also showed that, during his automotive work, her father used Bendix brake products approximately 5 to 10 times while Kathleen lived in the family home.
At trial, the plaintiff’s expert testified that asbestos from both the Bendix brakes and her father’s career as an electrician were contributing factors to Kathleen’s “total cumulative dose” of exposure. According to the plaintiff’s expert, Kathleen’s cumulative exposure―which included her exposure to asbestos from the Bendix brakes―was the cause of her mesothelioma. The jury found for the plaintiff and found Honeywell (as successor-in-interest to Bendix) to be 5% at fault. Honeywell appealed, and the appellate court upheld the decision. The Ohio Supreme Court granted a discretionary appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court first clarified Ohio’s standard for causation. To establish causation under Ohio law the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the injured person was exposed to asbestos “manufactured, supplied, installed, or used by the defendant;” and (2) the “exposure to the defendant’s asbestos was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury or loss.” Ohio Rev. Code 2307.96(A)-(B) (emphasis added). When determining whether exposure to asbestos is a “substantial factor,” the trier of fact must consider the manner, proximity, frequency, and length of the alleged exposure to asbestos. Ohio Rev. Code 2307.96(B). In contrast to section 2307.96 of the Ohio Revised Code, the cumulative exposure theory does not rely on any particular dose or exposure to asbestos. Rather, it argues that all exposures contribute to a causative dose. As such, the cumulative exposure theory considers all non-minimal exposures as causative because they contribute to the cumulative exposure to asbestos. In sum, the cumulative exposure theory examines all defendants in the aggregate by viewing any defendant that contributed to the exposure as a substantial cause. The Court held that the total cumulative exposure theory is inherently incompatible with the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 2307.96
In categorically rejecting the cumulative exposure test, the Court noted that section 2307.96(B) of the Ohio Revised Code requires an individualized determination for each defendant with respect to the alleged exposure. Thus, there must be a determination whether the conduct of each particular defendant was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury based on specific evidence of the manner, proximity, frequency, and length of exposure. Moreover “[w]here specific evidence of frequency of exposure, proximity and length of exposure to a particular defendant’s asbestos is lacking, summary judgment is appropriate . . . because such a plaintiff lacks any evidence of an essential element necessary to prevail.” The Court reasoned that the cumulative exposure theory, which requires only that the plaintiff demonstrate that the exposure to asbestos from the defendant’s product was non-minimal and contributed to the plaintiff’s total cumulative exposure is inconsistent with the statute’s clear and mandatory manner, proximity, frequency, and length of exposure requirements.
When applying the manner, proximity, frequency, and length factors to the case at issue, the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish causation. The plaintiff failed to introduce specific evidence of the manner of exposure, and had only presented limited evidence of proximity, frequency, and length of exposure. The Court also specifically stated that the alleged exposure to Bendix brakes was limited and irregular when compared to the regular exposures that Kathleen received through her father’s 33-year career as an electrician.
The Court’s ruling now seems to require Ohio plaintiffs to introduce defendant-specific expert evidence establishing that the exposure dose from a particular defendant’s product to satisfy substantial factor causation under Ohio law. It also highlights the importance of having a legal team that knows the facts of each case so that it can aggressively pursue all available options, such as motions to apply Ohio law.
Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Exercise of General Jurisdiction
In an opinion filed earlier today, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the standard for personal jurisdiction established in the United States Supreme Court case of Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). See Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc., 2017 IL 121281, ¶ 3. This case arose following an ammonia leak at the defendant’s storage facility in Michigan. Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc., 2017 IL 121281, ¶ 3. The plaintiff—who had insured the goods stored within the facility—had previously paid a claim for the loss and in doing so obtained subrogation rights. Id. The plaintiff subsequently brought suit against the defendant, Interstate Warehousing, Inc., in Cook County, Illinois alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and negligence. Id., ¶ 4.
The defendant is an Indiana corporation with its corporate office and principle place of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Id., ¶¶ 5, 7. The defendant conceded that it has one warehouse in Joliet, Illinois, and has been registered to do business within Illinois since 1988. Id., ¶ 7. However, the defendant also noted that it has other warehouses in Indiana, Colorado, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia. Id., ¶ 5. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id., ¶ 6. Writing for the court, Justice Burke held that Illinois courts could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the defendant, and remanded the case to the circuit court to enter judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
Operating a warehouse in Illinois did not subject the defendant to general jurisdiction.
The court began by affirming the general principle that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. Id., 2017 IL 121281, ¶ 12. In setting out the standard for establishing general jurisdiction, the Court expressly recognized that the United States Supreme Court has now firmly rejected the notion that the due process analysis rests simply on whether a foreign corporation is “doing business” within the state, or whether its contacts within the state are in some general sense continuous and systematic. Id. ¶ 16, citingDaimler, 571 U.S. at ___ n.20. Rather, the Court affirmed that a court may only assert general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in those “exceptional cases” when its affiliations are so “continuous and systematic” to render it “essentially at home” within the state. Id., ¶¶ 16–17 (emphasis added).
In this case, the plaintiff failed to meet that burden. First, all parties agreed that the defendant was neither incorporated in Illinois nor has its principle place of business in Illinois. Id., ¶¶ 5, 7. Second, the court held that although the defendant conducted some business within Illinois, its act of maintaining one warehouse within the state fell “far short of showing that Illinois was a surrogate home” for the defendant. The court reasoned that “if the operation of the warehouse was sufficient, in itself, to establish general jurisdiction, then [the] defendant would also be at home in all the other states where its warehouses are located.” Id., ¶ 19. The Court stated that the United States Court had already expressly rejected that reasoning. Id., ¶ 19, citing Daimler, 571 U.S. at ___ n.20 (“[a] corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them”).
Finally the court held that section (b)(4) of the Illinois long-arm statute—which purports to authorize a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant “doing business within this State”— cannot constitutionally be applied to establish jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant unless it is also “essentially as home’ within the state (as required by Daimler). 735 ILCS 5/2-209(b)(4); Aspen American Insurance Company, 2017 IL 121281, ¶ 21.
Compliance with the Business Corporation Act of 1983 did not subject the defendant to jurisdiction.
The plaintiff also argued that the defendant was subject to jurisdiction in Illinois because: (1) it had registered to do business within the state pursuant to the Business Corporation Act; and (2) pursuant to that Act had a registered agent for service of process within the state. Id., ¶ 21–22. The court rejected those arguments, holding that neither action subjected the defendant to jurisdiction. Id., ¶ 24. Relying on the plaint language of the Act, the court noted that:
None of [the Act’s] provisions require foreign corporations to consent to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in Illinois, nor do they indicate that, by registering in Illinois or appointing a registered agent, a corporation waives any due process limitations on this state’s exercise of general jurisdiction.
Id. In fact, the court continued, the “Act makes no mention of personal jurisdiction at all.” Id., ¶ 24.
Finally, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that section 5.25(A) of the Act—which states that a foreign corporation “shall be subject to the same duties . . . now or hereafter imposed upon a domestic corporation of like character”—subjected the defendant to jurisdiction. The court simply noted that jurisdiction is not a duty, and as such the section was inapplicable.
Illinois Appellate Court Grants Defendants’ Intrastate Rule 187(b) Motion to Dismiss for Re-Filing in Winnebago County Court
In a Rule 23(e) opinion, a First District appellate court reversed the trial court and granted the defendants’ rule 187(b) motion to dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Rohl v. Borg Warner Corporation, 2017 IL App (1st) 162398-U.
The decedent, Irvin Rohl, worked as a laborer, heavy equipment operator, and mechanic. During his deposition, Mr. Rohl testified that he attended an automotive and diesel trade school in Cook County for about 6 months. He also stated that he worked in Evansville, Indiana; Freeport, Illinois; and Rockford, Illinois (in Winnebago County). He worked in Winnebago County for approximately 46 years. When asked whether he was exposed to asbestos during his time at the Cook County trade school, he stated: “No. Not sure.” The record also showed that: (1) the plaintiffs had lived in Winnebago County for their entire adult lives; (2) all relevant co-workers lived in Winnebago County; (3) all of the plaintiffs’ surviving children resided in Winnebago County; and (4) the majority of the decedent’s medical providers were located in Winnebago County. The only medical provider located outside of Winnebago County was the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona. There was no evidence that the decedent had ever received medical treatment in Cook County. At the trial level, the circuit court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court specifically stated that Irvin Rohl had attended trade school in Cook County in the late 1940s, where he had allegedly been exposed to asbestos. On appeal, the court reversed.
First, the appellate court noted that there was insufficient evidence that the decedent had ever been exposed to asbestos in Cook County. Specifically, the court stated that: "[t]he evidence reveals that during Irvin’s six months in trade school in Chicago, he denied any exposure to asbestos, or was at best unsure whether exposure occurred. These equivocal statements are insufficient to establish that Irvin’s injury occurred in Cook County."
Second, the court noted that the majority of the private- and public-interest factors also favored dismissal for re-filing in Winnebago County. Of note, the court held that the defendants were not required to obtain affidavits from the decedent’s co-workers explicitly stating that it would be more convenient for them to testify in Winnebago County than in Cook County. Rather, the court noted that fact to be “obvious.” The court also stated that while the ease of access to documentary evidence is a less significant factor given the rise of computer technology and Internet access, many of Irvin’s employment records predated computer technology. As such, this factor may well remain important in asbestos cases alleging exposure asbestos, which typically predate computerization. The court also re-affirmed the importance of the possibility of viewing the site of the alleged injury.
Finally, the court specifically stated that Cook County did not have a particular interest in seeing the case tried within its borders, and that accordingly it would be unfair to impose the burdens of jury duty upon its citizens. Although the plaintiffs had argued that “hundreds, perhaps thousands” of Cook County residents had likely come into contact with defendants’ asbestos-containing products, the court held that such a contention was mere speculation that was insufficient to establish a “significant factual connection” to Cook County. Thus, there was no evidence that rendered this case a local controversy.
Although this case was published pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, it nonetheless provides defense attorneys with a firm basis to challenge the plaintiff's choice of forum when it bears little or no connection to the fact of the case at issue, and should be an effective tool to help combat forum shopping.
Sinars Rollins Successfully Asserts Corporate Dissolution Defense in Madison County
Sinars Rollins partner Megan Slowikowski was successful in arguing that Special Electric Company, Inc., a fiber supplier defendant, was a dissolved corporation that no longer has the capacity to be sued.
Special Electric Company, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, dissolved in 2012 and published notice of its dissolution on May 8, 2014. Under Wisconsin law—the law of the state of incorporation—a claim against a dissolved corporation is barred unless the claimant brings a proceeding to enforce the claim within 2 years after the publication of dissolution. In the case at issue, the plaintiff did not file his initial complaint until June 10, 2016. Sinars Rollins moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim against Special Electric arguing that: (1) Special Electric Company, as a dissolved corporation, no longer has capacity to be sued; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff could not and did not effect proper service on a dissolved corporation; and (3) in the alternative, the court should apply Wisconsin law to find that the plaintiff’s claims were not timely filed.
The court agreed, and on July 14, 2017, Judge Stobbs entered an order dismissing Special Electric Company, Inc. with prejudice. In so ruling, the court held that Special Electric has properly followed all administrative requirements with respect to both dissolving the corporation and publishing subsequent notice of that dissolution. As such, the court agreed that Special Electric ceased to exist as of May 9, 2016, and therefore lacked capacity to be sued as of that date. This ruling follows similar rulings on behalf of Special Electric in New York and California.
US Supreme Court Rejects Exercise of Specific Jurisdiction
In a June 19, 2017 opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that a California court did not have specific jurisdiction over nonresidents’ claims against a foreign corporation when their alleged injury did not occur within the state. In doing so, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, rejected the California Supreme Court’s “sliding scale” approach to jurisdiction and affirmed that “[i]n order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an “affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy.”
In this case, a group of plaintiffs — consisting of 86 California residents and 592 residents from 32 other states — filed a civil action in a California state court against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) for injuries allegedly caused by a BMS drug called Plavix. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and it maintains substantial operations in both New York and New Jersey. Under the law established in Daimler, all parties agreed that BMS was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California. Rather, the Court was asked to determine whether BMS was subject to specific jurisdiction in California with respect to the nonresident claims.
Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company conceded that it was subject to jurisdiction with respect to the resident Californians’ claims, but moved to dismiss the nonresidents’ claims. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company argued that California lacked specific jurisdiction because it did not develop Plavix in California, did not create a marketing strategy for Plavix in California, did not manufacture, label, package, or work on the regulatory approval of the product in California,” and because “[t]he nonresident plaintiffs did not allege that they obtained Plavix through California physicians or from any other California source and did not claim that they were injured by Plavix or were treated for their injuries in California.” The plaintiffs argued that BMS was subject to specific personal jurisdiction because BMS sold and marketed Plavix in California (making almost $900,000 from Plavix in California from 2006 to 2012, or a little over 1% of its nationwide sales revenue), and performed substantial research within the state.
In a majority opinion, the California Supreme Court found that it had specific personal jurisdiction over BMS. The court applied a “sliding scale approach to specific jurisdiction,” such that “the more wide ranging the defendant’s forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts and the claim.” Applying its “sliding scale” test, the majority concluded that “BMS’ extensive contacts with California” permitted the exercise of specific jurisdiction “based on a less direct connection between BMS’ forum activities and plaintiffs’ claims than might otherwise be required.” The majority found the attenuated requirement was met because the claims of the nonresidents were similar in several ways to the claims of the California residents, as to whom specific jurisdiction was uncontested.
In yesterday’s opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court. In doing so, it specifically rejected the California Court’s sliding scale approach, specifically stating that it was “difficult to square with [United States Supreme Court] precedents.” The Supreme Court affirmed its settled principles that “[i]n order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an “affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.” It further stated that absent such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State, even if the defendant has extensive forum contacts that are unrelated to those claims. In doing so, the Court has reaffirmed the clear separation between specific and general jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court clarified that “a defendant’s relationship with a... third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.” Applying that test to this case, the court held that there was no connection between the nonresidents’ claims and California: the nonresidents were not prescribed Plavix in California, did not purchase Plavix in California, did not ingest Plavix in California, and were not injured by Plavix in California. Thus, the mere fact that the resident plaintiffs obtained and ingested Plavix in California — and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresident plaintiffs — did not allow California to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims, even though their claims may be “materially identical” to the nonresidents’ claims.
This decision continues the United States Supreme Court’s trend of limiting the exercise of general jurisdiction in state courts (following its decisions in Daimler v. AG Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Company v. Tyrell, Case No. 16-405, and Walden v. Fiore, Case No. 12-574). Eight Justices — including the newest appointee, Justice Gorsuch — formed an 8-1 majority, suggesting that this area of law will remain settled for the foreseeable future. The decision affirms that restrictions on personal jurisdiction “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation,” that “they are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States,” and that the Fourteenth Amendment “may act to divest a state of its power to render a valid judgment if it has little legitimate interested in the claims in question.”
Defense counsel should take note that this ruling will allow defense firms to aggressively pursue motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in cases of mass action against multiple defendants who are “at home” in multiple states. Indeed, as the lone dissenter, Justice Sotomayor wrote:
“The majority’s rule will make it difficult to aggregate the claims of plaintiffs across the country whose claims may be worth little alone. It will make it impossible to bring a nationwide mass action in state court against defendants who are ‘at home’ in different states. it is difficult to imagine where it might be possible to bring a nationwide mass action against two or more defendants headquartered and incorporated in different States. And it will result in piecemeal litigation and the bifurcation of claims."
Missouri Supreme Court Decision on Personal Jurisdiction
The plaintiff, Russell Parker, sued his former employer, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”), in the state of Missouri, seeking damages for cumulative trauma sustained during his years of employment in the state of in Indiana. Norfolk initially filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the trial court overruled. Norfolk then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus with the Missouri Court of Appeals. When the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling, Norfolk sought the same relief in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed, and held that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Norfolk. The oral argument can be heard here. The full decision can be found by clicking here.
General Jurisdiction: The court first rejected Parker’s contention that Norfolk was subject to general jurisdiction in Missouri. The plaintiff claimed that Missouri courts could exercise general jurisdiction over Norfolk because it “conducts substantial business and owns property in Missouri.” However, the Court held that Norfolk’s contacts with the state were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. The court acknowledged that Norfolk owns track in Missouri, but also recognized that the portion of track within Missouri accounts for only two percent of Norfolk’s nationwide business activity. The court further noted that Norfolk is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia, and that Norfolk owns track in twenty-one other states. The court, relying on Daimler, concluded that this was not an “exceptional case,” and that the minimal amount of track in Missouri, did not render Norfolk “essentially at home in the state” so as to confer general jurisdiction upon Missouri courts.
Specific Jurisdiction: The court also rejected Parker’s argument that Norfolk was subject to specific jurisdiction in Missouri. It was undisputed that the plaintiff sustained his injuries in Indiana as Parker never worked for Norfolk in Missouri. As such, traditional specific personal jurisdiction was lacking. However, the plaintiff argued that specific jurisdiction was appropriate because Norfolk because his injuries in Indiana were injuries that arose from and were relating to the same type of activities that Norfolk performed in Missouri. The court rejected that argument as a misstatement of law. Likewise, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument that FELA specifically conferred jurisdiction.
Consent to Jurisdiction/Registration in the State: Finally, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Norfolk had consented to personal jurisdiction in Missouri by complying with Missouri’s foreign business registration statutes, i.e. registering with the state and designating an agent to receive service of process. The court cited to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for the proposition that the extent of any consent inferred from a registration statute “is a question of interpretation of the instrument in which the consent is expressed and of the statute, if any, in pursuance of which the consent is given.” It then looked to the plain language of Missouri’s registration statute and found that the Act does not mention consent to personal jurisdiction for claims unrelated to activities within the State. Rather, the registration statute provides only that registration is consent to service of process that Missouri requires or permits to be served on foreign corporations. As such, the court held that complying with the Act’s requirements does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction foreign corporations registered in the state.
In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that a contrary ruling would render Daimler “virtually pointless.” The Court was persuaded by the reasoning espoused in a recent Delaware case, which found that as “as every state requires a foreign corporation doing substantial business in a state to register under the foreign corporation statutes and appoint an agent for service of process, a broad inference of consent based on registration would allow national corporations to be sued in every state...”
Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Right to Jury of Twelve
In a 5-0 opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the right to a trial by jury includes the right to demand a 12-member jury. Kakos v. Butler, 2016 L 120377. The Court held that Public Act 98-1132, which sought to limit the size of a civil jury to 6 persons, was facially unconstitutional. The court further held that because the provision regarding jury size could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, the statute was entirely invalid.
To achieve its twin goals of decreasing jury size and increasing juror pay, Public Act 98-1132 amended two statutes. First, it amended section 2-1105(b) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure by eliminating the ability of either party to request a jury of twelve. 735 ILCS 5/2-1105(b) (West 2012) (amended by Pub. Act 98-1132 (eff. June 1, 2015)) (“All jury cases shall be tried by a jury of 6.”). Second, the Act amended section 4-11001 of the Counties Code to provide a uniform and increased rate of pay for jurors. 55 ILCS 5/4-11001 (West 2012).
At the trial level, the plaintiffs filed a complaint at law alleging multiple counts of medical negligence and loss of consortium. The defendants requested a 12-person jury, and sought a declaration that Public Act 98-1132 was unconstitutional insofar as it required a jury of six. The Circuit Court agreed, and held that Public Act 98-1132 was facially unconstitutional, and that section 2-1105(b), as amended, was void. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as of right pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 302.
After acknowledging that the United States Constitution does not guarantee a right to trial by a jury of 12, the Court turned its attention to Article I, section 13 of the Illinois Constitution, which states that:
“The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.”
Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 13 (emphasis added). The Court recognized that it has long interpreted the phrase “as heretofore enjoyed” as preserving “the right of a trial by jury as it existed under the common law and as enjoyed at the time of the adoption of the respective Illinois Constitutions.” Kakos, 2016 L 120377, ¶ 14. Although the Court acknowledged that section 13 does not preserve all features of a common-law jury trial, it nonetheless concluded that the size of the jury “was an essential element of the right of trial by jury at the time the 1970 Constitution was drafted,” and as such that right was “preserved and protected in the Constitution.” Id., ¶ 28. In support of its conclusion, the Court noted that “transcripts from the constitutional convention debates disclose that the delegates did not believe that the legislature had the authority to reduce the size of a civil jury.” Id., ¶ 23. The Court considered these transcripts as “ample evidence that the drafters at the 1970 Constitutional Convention believed that they were specifically preserving the right to a 12-person jury when they adopted the current Constitution.” Id., ¶ 22. Consequently, the Court held that Public Act 98-1132, as it amended section 2-1105(b), is unconstitutional and void ab initio.
Finally, the court considered whether it could sever the unconstitutional provision from the remainder of the Act. However, it concluded that the two provisions — a decrease in jury size and an increase in jury pay — were designed to act “in tandem.” Id., ¶ 33. In reviewing the transcripts of the legislative debates regarding Public Act 98-1132, the court found it evident that the legislature would not have passed the provision increasing pay independently. Accordingly, the Court concluded “that the provision reducing the size of the jury cannot be severed from the remainder of Public Act 98-1132 and that the entirely [sic] of the Act is invalid.” Id., ¶ 34.
Unanimous Illinois Supreme Court Applies the Discovery Rule to Wrongful Death and Survival Actions Alleging Medical Malpractice
On September 22, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the discovery rule found in section 13-212(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure applies to medical malpractice actions brought under both the Illinois Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/1, et seq. (West 2012)) and the Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6 (West 2012)). See Moon v. Rhode, 2015 IL App (3d) 130613.
On May 18, 2009, the plaintiff’s 90-year-old mother, Kathryn Moon, was admitted to Proctor Hospital for a rectal prolapse. After undergoing subsequent surgery, Ms. Moon experienced numerous complications that eventually led to her death 11 days later. On February 26, 2010, the plaintiff requested his mother’s complete medical file from Proctor Hospital, which he received on March 10, 2010, and later sent to a medical consulting firm for review. On April 21, 2011, the plaintiff received an oral opinion that several of the doctors at Proctor Hospital were negligent in treating his mother. He received an additional written report with specific conclusions on May 2, 2011. Also two years later, on March 4, 2013, the plaintiff received a final report concluding that a further doctor, the defendant, Dr. Clarissa Rhode, had also been negligent in her treatment of Ms. Moon. On March 18, 2013 — almost four years since his mother’s death, but less than 2 years after receiving the initial oral report from the medical consulting firm — the plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Rhode.
Dr. Rhode moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action asserting that the claim was time-barred. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the complaint was untimely because it was not filed within 2 years of Ms. Moon’s death. A divided appellate court affirmed, holding that the discovery rule has no application to a wrongful death or survival action. See Moon v. Rhode, 2015 IL App (3d) 130613. The appellate court reasoned that the two-year statute of limitations for filing a complaint for wrongful death begins to run at the time of the decedent’s death and not after the plaintiff discovers the alleged medical negligence. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal. Moon v. Rhode, 39 N.E.3d 1004 (2015).
The Illinois Supreme Court recognized the issue as one of statutory construction, and focused on the language of section 13-212(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which states, in pertinent part, that:
[N]o action for damages for injury or death against any physician... arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known... the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought in the action...
735 ILCS 5/13-212(a) (West 2012) (emphasis added).
In defining the term “injury,” the court quoted its earlier decision in Witherell, in which it held that knowledge of an ‘injury’ requires not only knowledge of the physical injury but also knowledge of its wrongful causation. The Court then has to decide whether the term ‘death’ in the phrase ‘injury or death’ should receive the same construction as its interpretation of the term “injury.” Relying on both Witherall and the majority of recent appellate authority, the court concluded that it should. The Court stated:
We agree with plaintiff that no cognizable reason exists for us to interpret “death” in a different manner than we have already interpreted “injury” in that sentence. We therefore conclude, consistent with our statutory interpretation in Witherell, that the statute of limitations in a wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice begins to run when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the death and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused.
Moon v. Rhode, 2015 IL App (3d) 130613, ¶ 27. The court further stated that because the plaintiff’s action was premised upon medical malpractice, the statute of limitations specific to that claim (i.e. 735 ILCS 5/13-212(a)) trumped the two-year limit established in section 2(c) of the Wrongful Death Act.
Using similar reasoning, the Court also applied the discovery rule to medical malpractice suits brought pursuant to the Survival Act. Thus, the statute of limitations in a Survival Act claim is triggered on the date that the plaintiff discovers, or should reasonably have discovered that the injury or death was wrongfully caused. The court acknowledged that in a survival action, the representative steps into the shoes of the decedent, and as such it is the date that the decedent learns of her injury that is controlling. In this case, the Court recognized that Kathyrn Moon was unresponsive at the time of her death, and was therefore unable to discover any alleged negligence. The court stated that it saw:
no reason... to impose the statute of limitations constraints that the decedent would have faced had she lived on plaintiff[,] as [her] representative[,] without also allowing the benefits of the discovery rule that she would have been entitled to if her alleged injuries had not been so serious as to lead to her death. After concluding that the discovery rule applied to the plaintiff’s causes of action, the Court remanded for further findings of fact as to when the plaintiff knew, or should reasonably have known that Kathryn’s death was wrongfully caused.
Sinars Rollins Obtains Directed Verdict in City of St. Louis
On August 31, 2016, Sinars Rollins partner Doug Sinars secured a directed verdict after a thirteen-day jury trial in the City of St. Louis on behalf of a local industrial supply company. In this “take home” exposure case based on negligence and strict liability, Donna and Jerry Harrison alleged our client sold asbestos-containing automotive brakes and gaskets to a nearby car dealership where Jerry worked as a mechanic. They further alleged that Jerry transported asbestos fibers to his home causing Donna Harrison’s mesothelioma.
The judge granted our client’s motion for directed verdict citing plaintiffs’ lack of sufficient evidence of exposure. Over a week later, the jury reached a defense verdict for the three remaining defendants. Jessica Dean of Dean, Omar and Branham represented the plaintiffs. For additional information, please contact Doug Sinars at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Illinois Appellate Court Holds that Plaintiff with Asymptomatic Asbestosis Cannot Maintain a Products Liability Claim
June 20, 2016, a divided panel of the appellate court held that physical changes to the lungs, such as asbestosis and pleural plaques, do not afford a cause of action for product liability unless accompanied by clinical symptoms. See Sondag v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 2016 IL App (4th) 140918. This brings Illinois law into line with a number of other jurisdictions.
In 2007, the plaintiff, Joseph Sondag, went to his doctor complaining of dizziness, sweating, and a disturbance of the inner ear. A chest x-ray and CT scan of Sondag’s chest revealed pleural plaques and interstitial fibrosis (scarring) in his lungs, and his doctor subsequently diagnosed him with asbestosis. His doctor further opined that those injuries had been caused by the plaintiff’s used of Tremoc, Inc.’s asbestos-containing tape. Notably, Joseph Sondag did not complain of respiratory symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, or wheezing. In fact, various tests showed that Sondag’s pulmonary function was well within normal limits.
Relying on that diagnosis, Joseph Sondag and his spouse, Phyllis Sondag, sued Tremco Inc. in the Circuit Court of McClean County. After a jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor the defendant appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court returned a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence of “physical harm,” an essential element of any action for products liability.
In reaching its decision, the court distinguished between “injury” and “harm.” Relying on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court defined “injury” as the invasion of any legally protected interest of another. In contrast, the court defined “harm” as the existence of loss or detriment in fact. Quoting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 7, the court noted that "‘[h]arm’ implies a loss or detriment to a person, and not a mere change or alteration in some physical person, object[,] or thing. Physical changes or alterations may be either beneficial, detrimental, or of no consequence to a person. In so far as physical changes have a detrimental effect on a person, that person suffers harm." Thus, an injury that does not manifest any symptoms does not constitute compensable “harm” for purposes of a products liability action.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs that Joseph Sondag had suffered an injury. The court accepted that Sondag had experienced an alteration to the structure of his body insomuch as the pleural plaques and interstitial fibrosis that had physically altered the structure of his lungs. However, the court concluded that Sondag had not suffered harm. The court reasoned that the injuries to Sondag’s lungs had not presented any clinical symptoms, and had therefore not caused any physically impairing loss or detriment to Joseph Sondag in any practical or functional way. The court further noted that even on the day of trial Sondag still had no pulmonary symptoms, respiratory distress, or limitation, and opined that had he not undergone the x-ray and CT scan he “would have remained blissfully unaware of any condition in his lungs.” Thus, the plaintiffs had not introduced any evidence of “physical harm,” an essential element of their case, and the verdict returned in their favor at the trial level could not possibly stand.
Illinois Supreme Court Issues Supervisory Order On Personal Jurisdiction Appeal
On May 25, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order requiring the Fifth District Appellate Court to take an appeal from Judge Stephen Stobbs’ recent denial of Ford Motor Company’s personal jurisdiction motion in Est. of Dale E. Jeffs (15 L 533), an asbestos case brought by Florida plaintiffs. Dale Jeffs worked as an insulator at various locations from 1968 to 1995, including at Ford’s plant in Michigan. Ford is incorporated in Delaware and its principal place of business is in Michigan.
Under Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760 (2014), the appropriate analysis to determine whether or not a court has general personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant rests on where that defendant has its primary place of business and in which state the defendant is incorporated. For an Illinois court to exercise general jurisdiction, due process requires that a defendant’s affiliations with Illinois be so constant and regular as to render [it] essentially at home in Illinois. Despite Daimler, Judge Stobbs denied Ford’s motion to dismiss and ruled that Ford’s contacts with Illinois are so substantial that it “has availed itself of the protection of the Illinois Courts and the benefits of Illinois law and by its own admission conducts substantial, not de minimus, business in Illinois.”
Sinars Rollins Wins Summary Judgement in McLean County, Illinois
Sinars Rollins partner Owen Blood recently prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Company, a supplier of gaskets and packing, in a products liability case in McLean County, Illinois. The motion and oral argument before Judge Rebecca Foley focused on lack of causation evidence under Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc. 151 Ill. 2d. 343 (1992).
A former co-worker of the decedent testified that the decedent worked with and around our client’s gaskets and packing on boiler room pipes, valves and pumps. Owen successfully argued that Thacker’s “frequency, regularity and proximity” test to establish causation had not been met and that there was insufficient evidence that the gaskets and packing at issue contained asbestos.
After taking the matter under advisement following oral arguments, Judge Foley released a written opinion on May 31, 2016 granting the motion. Schaab Order. The case had been set for trial on June 13, 2016.
Sinars Rollins, LLC Wins Summary Judgment in Wisconsin
On April 14, 2016, Dane County, Wisconsin Judge James R. Troupis granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Special Electric Company, Inc. andits former president, John Erato, at a pre-trial conference in the Morehouse et al. v. Special Electric Company, et al. (14 cv 1154) case. James Rollins, a founding partner at Sinars Rollins, L.L.C., represented Special Electric and Mr. Erato. Jim successfully argued that Mr. Erato’s resignation as president did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiffs and the statute of limitations barred any claim against him for a breach of fiduciary duty. He also persuaded the court that because Special Electric was dissolved by the State of Wisconsin on May 8, 2014, the court did not have the authority to reinstate the company. To do so would ignore the authority granted by the legislature to the Department of Financial Institutions as well as the Business Corporations Act. In addition, because Mr. Erato properly resigned, the court found there was no one left at Special Electric to be ordered to reinstate the company. For more information, contact Jim Rollins at email@example.com
This is the background of the Bottom Area shown below. It'll display correctly on published site.
If you don't want background for the bottom area, simply hover over the bottom of this image to delete it. The background of the bottom area will be a solid dark color.