The highly anticipated Ford Motor Company jurisdiction appeal was released as an unpublished Rule 23 decision after the appellate court remained under advisement for roughly a year and a half; but an asbestos defense attorney said the ruling still provides assistance for defendants raising jurisdiction objections in Madison County
Asbestos defense attorney Lisa LaConte, a shareholder with Heyl Royster, said she and her colleagues were pleased with the “very well-thought” decision.
“It explicitly followed the narrow interpretation of the Illinois Supreme Court when you look at defining what constitutes general jurisdiction over a defendant,” she said.
LaConte said she was pleased to see the appellate court recognize that there must be an exceptional circumstance to render a foreign defendant at home in Illinois.
Justice Thomas Welch delivered the Rule 23 decision on July 12 with Justice Randy Moore concurring. Justice Richard Goldenhersh dissented.
Rule 23 decisions are not published opinions and cannot be used as supporting case law for future asbestos defendants seeking to make general jurisdiction arguments. According to the Heyl Royster appellate division, the justices issuing the decision determine if it will be a Rule 23 or a published opinion. However, parties may file a motion to publish the ruling as an opinion within 21 days of the entry of the order.
The appellate court concluded that Ford’s business in Illinois is not exceptional enough to establish jurisdiction, and exercising general jurisdiction over Ford would violate due process. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the claims against the defendant.
While the decision is not a published opinion, LaConte said it still helps clarify jurisdiction questions.
She said the decision primarily helped “define more clearly when a court can find jurisdiction and when they can find no jurisdiction. It takes a little bit of uncertainty out of the jurisdiction question that maybe we were raising a few years ago.”
She explained that Heyl Royster has been raising lack of personal jurisdiction objections when applicable with success for years.
The Ford decision now gives defendants who do business in Illinois but do not believe they are at home in Illinois “a greater opportunity to raise a defense,” she said.
LaConte said the impact the decision will have on other asbestos defendants being sued in Madison County will vary on a case-by-case basis with a lot of unknowns to consider.
Some defendants may have jurisdiction in Madison County for all of their cases while others may not have jurisdiction for any of their cases. She added that cases should be filed where the plaintiff resides, where the exposure occurred or where the defendant's headquarters is located.
“It’s important that a case be brought in the location that it should be brought,” LaConte said.
“Certain defendants who shouldn’t be sued here in Illinois hopefully will no longer be sued here if those defendants choose to raise those objections,” she added.
Goldenhersh argued in his dissent that plaintiff Irene Jeffs provided enough evidence to render Ford at home in Illinois.
“I agree with plaintiff that there is sufficient evidence showing Ford is engaged in the type of systematic business activity in Illinois that renders it ‘essentially at home’ in Illinois and justifies a finding of general personal jurisdiction.
“Ford attempts to minimize its presence in Illinois by comparing its substantial Illinois presence with its overall global presence, relying on a footnote in Daimler that states: ‘A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them,’” Goldenhersh wrote.
He states that he is “unconvinced” by Ford’s Illinois presence compared to its global presence. Goldenhersh notes that Ford has 156 dealerships in Illinois, sells over 100,000 cars each year, owns property, employs 5,500 people, has a town named after it – Ford Heights – and has invested over a half a billion dollars in Illinois in the last five years.
“Because of its numerous affiliations with our state, Ford is ‘at home’ in Illinois and it is fundamentally fair to require Ford to litigate this lawsuit in Illinois,” he wrote.
Goldenhersh also stated in his dissent that the “majority disposition too narrowly applies the concept of ‘at home’ …”
LaConte said Goldenhersh's dissent mirrored the claims the plaintiff’s counsel made about Ford’s business in Illinois. However, she said she thinks the majority’s narrow interpretation is “more consistent with the prior cases that were cited.”
“The dissent is merely a difference in interpreting what the significance means,” LaConte said. “What factors are you going to have to demonstrate to declare someone at home?”
Florida resident Irene Jeffs, individually and as special administrator for the estate of her husband Dale Jeffs, filed suit in Madison County Circuit Court against 38 defendants, including Ford. The suit was filed by attorneys at the Maune Raichle firm in St. Louis.
Dale Jeffs, now deceased, had worked as a union insulator for various contractors at a variety of jobs in several states from 1968-1995, including time spent at Ford’s plant in Michigan. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2015and died Sept. 4, 2015, according to the appellate court decision.
Ford filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on June 26, 2015 through Greensfelder, Hemker, & Gale in Belleville. The defendant argued that Illinois lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction. Ford is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Michigan.
Stobbs denied Ford’s motion to dismiss, finding that Ford consented to jurisdiction in Illinois because it conducts business in Illinois, owns property in Illinois, has dealers in Illinois and maintains a registered agent in Illinois. He also held that Ford had done business in the state since 1922 and has litigated other cases in here without objecting to personal jurisdiction.
Ford appealed to the Fifth District, which was originally denied. Then on May 25, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court directed the appellate court to allow Ford’s petition for leave to appeal.
Attorneys with Maune Raichle and Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale declined to comment on the case.