Zamora v. Lewis
146 N.E.3d 231
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Zamora Jr. and Cartalino, administrator) sued after a 2016 Maine house fire at an Airbnb rental killed Baldomero Zamora Sr.; plaintiffs allege ionization smoke detectors (manufactured/distributed by Kidde/United) failed to timely activate.
- Gilbert (Airbnb guest) booked the Maine house via Airbnb while she resided in Chicago; Lewises (Maine hosts) listed the property on Airbnb and approved the reservation.
- Plaintiffs sued the Lewises, Airbnb, Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. (Kidde), United Technologies (United), and others, asserting negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, and Consumer Fraud Act claims.
- Plaintiffs obtained an early evidence-preservation order requiring Kidde to preserve documents about other incidents; the trial court later vacated, then reinstated that order.
- The trial court dismissed the Lewises and United/Kidde for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs appealed and defendants cross-appealed the reinstatement of the preservation order.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissals for lack of personal jurisdiction and vacated the evidence-preservation order as void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Lewises (Maine hosts) | Lewises transacted business and made a contract substantially connected to Illinois by listing on Airbnb and contracting with an Illinois resident (Gilbert); they sent communications and advertised the house (including noting a smoke detector). | The rental was a one-time, short-term transaction created by Gilbert (a fortuitous contact); Lewises did not target Illinois, had no ongoing obligations in Illinois, and contacts are too tenuous to satisfy due process. | No personal jurisdiction. One-time, bilateral approval of a booking by an Illinois resident insufficient to create the required substantial connection. Dismissal affirmed. |
| Personal jurisdiction over Kidde/United (manufacturer/distributor) | Kidde purposefully marketed and sold ionization detectors in Illinois (in-store, TV, Internet), decedent saw/relied on Kidde advertising at Home Depot in Illinois, creating the necessary nexus to Illinois. | Kidde’s substantial Illinois contacts are unrelated to the Maine fire: the detectors involved were sold and installed in Maine and the injury occurred in Maine, so plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of Kidde’s Illinois contacts. | No personal jurisdiction. Even pervasive Illinois sales/advertising were not sufficiently related to the Maine-centric controversy. Dismissal affirmed (United likewise dismissed as parent company). |
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ affidavits (Rule 191/hearsay) | Affidavits recounting what decedent told plaintiffs show his state of mind and exposure to Kidde advertising in Illinois. | Statements are inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used to establish jurisdiction under Rule 191. | Court properly struck the hearsay portions; those averments were inadmissible and could not support jurisdiction. |
| Validity of evidence-preservation order against Kidde | Preservation order justified to protect potentially relevant evidence. | Trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Kidde, so any order against Kidde is void ab initio. | Preservation order was void for lack of personal jurisdiction and is vacated on appeal. (Although trial court briefly reinstated the order, appellate court vacated it.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (specific-jurisdiction requires defendant’s own forum contacts that create a substantial connection with the forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (specific jurisdiction limited to controversies connected to defendant’s forum activities)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (no specific jurisdiction when plaintiffs’ claims lack a connection to defendant’s forum contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fair warning principles for personal jurisdiction)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) (Illinois Consumer Fraud Act framework; not a specific-jurisdiction case)
- Pilipauskas v. Yakel, 258 Ill. App. 3d 47 (1994) (no personal jurisdiction where out-of-state injury arises from a fortuitous, one-time rental by plaintiffs from nonresident owners)
- Zazove v. Pelikan, Inc., 326 Ill. App. 3d 798 (2001) (personal jurisdiction found where defendant purposefully marketed in Illinois and plaintiff’s claim arose from that marketing)
- MacNeil v. Trambert, 401 Ill. App. 3d 1077 (2010) (online seller’s lack of control over buyer’s residence can negate purposeful availment)