CE Design Ltd. v. Healthcraft Products, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 143000

CE Design (Illinois) sued HealthCraft (Ontario) in Cook County for unsolicited faxes; HealthCraft was served in Ontario and tendered defense to its insurer ING (Ontario).
CE Design and HealthCraft negotiated a settlement in Cook County: consent judgment $543,500 against HealthCraft and assignment of HealthCraft’s rights under the ING policy to CE Design; ING was not notified of settlement until after preliminary approval.
ING filed a declaratory judgment action in Ontario, later amended to add CE Design; Ontario court found it had jurisdiction, applied Ontario law, and held ING had no duty to defend or indemnify; it awarded ING costs against CE Design.
ING registered the Ontario judgment in Cook County; CE Design moved to quash registration and pursued citations to discover assets against ING; the Cook County court recognized the Ontario judgment but refused to enforce the Ontario award of costs against CE Design on due-process grounds and struck CE Design’s citation against ING.
On appeal, Illinois appellate court affirmed denial of CE Design’s turnover motion/citation against ING, held CE Design was precluded from relitigating Ontario jurisdiction and coverage (res judicata/full faith and credit), but reversed the Cook County court’s refusal to enforce the Ontario costs award and remanded for enforcement of that portion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of proof for foreign judgment registration	CE Design: ING failed to adequately prove the Ontario judgment (required expert proof of foreign law).	ING: Issue waived below; no such objection raised.	Waived; no expert-proof requirement for simple registration shown.
Whether Ontario court had personal jurisdiction over CE Design	CE Design: No contacts with Ontario; court lacked jurisdiction; judgment void.	ING: CE Design litigated jurisdiction in Ontario and lost; res judicata bars relitigation.	Jurisdiction was litigated and decided in Ontario; CE Design barred from relitigating (res judicata).
Whether ING had duty to defend/indemnify under its policy	CE Design: ING had a duty to defend/indemnify HealthCraft (thus liable to assignee CE Design).	ING: Policy excludes claim; HealthCraft breached cooperation; Ontario court properly ruled no duty.	Coverage issues were decided in Ontario and are precluded from relitigation (full faith and credit).
Enforceability of Ontario award of fees/costs against CE Design in Illinois	CE Design: Ontario costs award should not be enforced (due-process concerns).	ING: Having registered the Ontario judgment, costs award must be enforced; court may not pick parts to apply.	Trial court erred refusing to enforce the costs award; appellate court reversed and remanded for enforcement.

Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525 (explains waiver of issues not raised below)
Pinilla v. Harza Engineering Co., 324 Ill. App. 3d 803 (distinguishes Recognition and Enforcement Acts for foreign judgments)
Morey Fish Co. v. Rymer Foods, Inc., 158 Ill. 2d 179 (foreign-judgment jurisdiction issues litigated abroad bar relitigation)
Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 283 U.S. 522 (federal precedent on respect for foreign courts’ jurisdictional rulings)
First Wisconsin Nat. Bank of Milwaukee v. Kramer, 202 Ill. App. 3d 1043 (res judicata prevents relitigation of foreign-court jurisdiction)
Ross & Chatterton Law Offices v. Lewis, 109 Ill. App. 3d 856 (party cannot mount jurisdictional challenge then litigate elsewhere)
Brownlee v. Western Chain Co., 49 Ill. App. 3d 247 (full faith and credit and foreign-judgment recognition principles)
All Seasons Indus., Inc. v. Gregory, 174 Ill. App. 3d 700 (full faith and credit bars merits rehearing)
Falcon v. Faulkner, 209 Ill. App. 3d 1 (res judicata bars defenses that could have been raised earlier)
Dawson v. Duncan, 144 Ill. App. 3d 532 (scope of res judicata in judgment enforcement)