The Illinois Supreme Court's decision to toss 160 plaintiffs from other states out of Madison County injury suits came as no surprise, according to an attorney who advocates for asbestos litigation reform.
In a 7-0 decision in favor of Bayer, the high court affirmed what already was presumed to be the law of the land, said Mark Behrens, Shook Hardy & Bacon's co-chair of the firm's public policy practice group.
"The issue going forward is what impact it will have," Behrens said.
Bayer, maker of the contraceptive device Essure, sought relief from the high court after the Fifth District Appellate Court rejected its argument that non-Illinoisans are precluded from suing in Madison County based on the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bristol Myers Squibb in 2017.
Behrens said he doesn't foresee a sea change in the litigation landscape in Madison and St. Clair counties - the nation's top asbestos courts - where cases are overwhelmingly on behalf of non-Illinoisans.
Even before last week's decision, asbestos defendants have had the opportunity to seek dismissal of Illinois cases involving non-residents, Behrens noted.
"This decision certainly strengthens the position they had," he said.
Behrens added that for now, those who pay attention to the local asbestos dockets will have to wait and see what impact the decision will have, particularly on larger "top tier" companies that are named in most suits.
He said that the concern of those companies has been that if they obtain dismissal in Illinois where settlement values have been reasonable - where will those cases get refiled?
The danger for them is cases getting refiled in jurisdictions with higher settlement values, such as New York City, California's Bay area and Philadelphia, whereas in Madison and St. Clair counties, settlement values have been "predictable" and "reasonable," he said.
"If you have predictability, why rock the boat," he said. "You could end up somewhere else worse."
"Peripheral" defendants may be more likely to take advantage of the ruling, he said, describing those as companies likely to be dismissed without payment anyway, believing they won't be pursued elsewhere when escaping Illinois jurisdiction.
Behrens also observed that the ruling will be an important check on lawyer greed and fairness of courts.
"Both the courts and plaintiff lawyers know that the defendant has a tool to leave Illinois," he said. "So right now people are choosing to stay if settlements are reasonable and fair. If courts go back to being unfair and higher settlements, that's when you might see companies reconsider."