Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc.
105 N.E.3d 984
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Arlin Campbell (Alabama resident; later deceased) sued multiple defendants alleging mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at jobs in several states, including a brief period at Republic Steel in Chicago in the 1960s.
- Complaint generically alleged some products he encountered were manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed by General Electric Company (GE), but did not specifically allege GE products caused exposure in Illinois.
- GE moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Illinois long-arm statute and federal due process, asserting no consent, no general jurisdiction, and no specific jurisdiction tied to Illinois contacts.
- Plaintiff argued jurisdiction by necessity, consent (doing business / registered agent), general jurisdiction (systematic and continuous business in Illinois), and specific jurisdiction based on deposition testimony suggesting GE made the electric furnaces at Republic Steel.
- The circuit court denied GE’s motion without stating the grounds; GE appealed. The appellate court reviewed documentary evidence de novo (depositions, affidavits, exhibits).
- The appellate court found GE not "at home" in Illinois for general jurisdiction, rejected consent and jurisdiction-by-necessity theories, and held plaintiff failed to show GE products caused his Illinois exposure for specific jurisdiction; it reversed and ordered GE dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | GE has extensive, continuous business in Illinois (licensed since 1897; employees and facilities; significant sales), so it is "at home." | GE is incorporated in New York with principal place of business in Massachusetts; Illinois contacts are a small fraction of global operations. | No general jurisdiction — GE is not "at home" in Illinois (Daimler standard). |
| Consent to jurisdiction | GE’s doing business, registered agent, prior litigation in Illinois amounts to consent. | Registered agent and unrelated litigation do not waive due process limits or constitute consent. | No consent — those facts do not confer general jurisdiction or waive defenses. |
| Specific personal jurisdiction | Plaintiff’s deposition shows he was exposed to GE-made electric furnaces at Republic Steel, tying the claim to Illinois. | Plaintiff lacks personal knowledge; deposition testimony is hearsay / inadmissible for proving GE made those furnaces; GE’s affidavit denies making steel-melting furnaces. | No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie link between GE’s Illinois contacts and the claim. |
| Jurisdiction by necessity | Because defendants and exposures span multiple states, Illinois is a necessary forum to sue all parties. | No controlling authority recognizes such a doctrine; due process requires minimum contacts. | Rejected — court will not adopt "jurisdiction by necessity" absent precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts / due process foundation)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction — corporation "at home" paradigm)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (specific vs general jurisdiction; ties required for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (forum contacts and foreseeability in jurisdiction analysis)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (exceptional circumstances supporting general jurisdiction)