Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc.
57 N.E.3d 656
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Aspen American, subrogee for Eastern Fish, sued Interstate Warehousing, Inc. in Cook County after a roof collapse at Interstate’s Grand Rapids, MI warehouse damaged Eastern’s product.
- Eastern had contracted with Interstate to store food products; the collapse occurred March 8, 2014.
- Interstate is incorporated and headquartered in Indiana but advertises and lists a Joliet, Illinois warehouse on its website and letterhead; it is a 75% member of Interstate Warehousing of Illinois, LLC (IW Illinois), which operates the Joliet facility.
- Aspen filed in Illinois asserting breach, negligence, bailment, consumer-fraud claims, and spoliation, attaching correspondence and the contract; the papers showed Interstate’s Joliet presence and that Interstate had been authorized to do business in Illinois since 1988.
- Interstate moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (relying on Daimler) and challenged service, submitting affidavits that the Joliet warehouse was operated by IW Illinois and that Ryan Shaffer (the Joliet general manager) was not an officer or registered agent.
- The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed, holding service on Shaffer was proper and that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of general jurisdiction which Interstate failed to rebut.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service of process | Service on Joliet general manager Ryan Shaffer was proper because his duties made him an agent who understood the import of the papers and promptly forwarded them | Service was improper because Shaffer was not an officer or registered agent and lacked training/authority to accept service | Service was valid: Shaffer, as general manager, had supervisory duties and understood the import (he immediately forwarded the summons), so he qualified as an agent for service under 735 ILCS 5/2‑204(1) |
| Personal jurisdiction (general jurisdiction) | Interstate’s continuous/systematic contacts — advertising the Joliet warehouse, employing the general manager there, and authorization to do business in Illinois since 1988 — support Illinois general jurisdiction under the long‑arm statute and federal due process | Daimler requires that general jurisdiction be reserved to fora where a corporation is essentially "at home" (incorporation or principal place of business absent exceptional facts); Interstate’s contacts with Illinois are insufficient and defendant supplied affidavits showing the Joliet facility is operated by IW Illinois | Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of continuous/systematic contacts (advertising, Joliet facility, authorization to do business); defendant failed to rebut because it did not present evidence (e.g., business volume) showing contacts were too slim; court affirmed denial of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (limits on general jurisdiction; defendant must be "at home" in forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (clarified that general jurisdiction normally rests only where corporation is incorporated or has principal place of business; narrow "exceptional case" standard)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (discussed general vs. specific jurisdiction and continuous/systematic contacts test)
- Alderson v. Southern Co., 321 Ill. App. 3d 832 (Illinois case holding substantial, continuous contracts to serve Illinois supported general jurisdiction)
- Dei v. Tumara Food Mart, Inc., 406 Ill. App. 3d 856 (Illinois case on when an employee qualifies as agent for service of process)