Russell v. SNFA
965 N.E.2d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Michael Russell died in a 2003 Illinois helicopter crash; plaintiff is his brother and executor of the estate.
- SNFA, a French manufacturer, produced custom tail-rotor bearings for the Agusta A109 helicopter involved in the crash.
- Bearings were installed by Agusta and later replaced with SNFA bearings in the same model; plaintiff alleges defect caused a loss of tail-rotor function.
- Plaintiff asserts Illinois is proper for suit because the crash occurred in Illinois and SNFA’s bearings were used in a product marketed in the United States.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiff appeals to challenge that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois has specific jurisdiction over SNFA under 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(2). | Russell contends the tort occurred in Illinois and SNFA purposefully directed activity toward Illinois. | SNFA argues no Illinois contacts or purposefully availed activity; insufficient connection to Illinois. | Yes; Illinois has specific jurisdiction under (a)(2). |
| Whether Illinois has jurisdiction under the catchall 2-209(c) based on due process. | Russell asserts enough Illinois-related activity to satisfy due process under (c). | SNFA contends no appropriate basis beyond the tort and general activity. | Yes; due process supports jurisdiction under (c). |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists under 2-209(b) for SNFA. | Russell claims SNFA’s continuous and systematic contacts make Illinois a general forum. | SNFA argues it does not have the type of continuous, systematic presence required. | Not reached on the basis of (a) and (c); general jurisdiction not needed. |
| Whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under the due process framework. | Illinois has a strong interest; injury occurred there; forum is efficient for resolution. | Claims heavy burden on an alien defendant and potential fairness concerns. | Jurisdiction is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (reaffirms general vs. specific jurisdiction and minimum contacts framework)
- McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (distribution sufficiency depends on the right set of facts; authority vs. fairness noted)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (minimum contacts and reasonableness framework for jurisdiction; indemnification context)
- Rockwell International Corp. v. Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta, S.p.A., 553 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (custom component design and distribution linked to forum; supports minimum contacts)
- Bell v. Don Prudhomme Racing, Inc., 405 Ill. App. 3d 223 (2010) (minimum contacts and reasonableness in Illinois for nonresident defendants)