News and Events

Illinois Supreme Court Curbs General Jurisdiction for Non-Resident Corporations

April 20, 2020Civil ProcedureJoseph Panatera and Dina LupancuRelated Practice Areas: Transportation
Joseph A. Panatera

Illinois Supreme Court Curbs General Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Corporations

The Illinois Supreme Court in Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc.[i]narrowed personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants, essentially closing the door to plaintiffs suing for claims that have minimal ties to Illinois.

The application of the International Shoe[ii] minimum contacts test has traditionally permitted courts to exert power over non-resident corporations that were deemed to have “continuous and systematic contacts” with the forum, even when the suit was unrelated to the corporation's activities in the forum. Its application has proven to be particularly beneficial to toxic and mass tort personal injury litigation. However, Aspen effectually altered the trajectory of this long standing practice in Illinois by arguably invalidating a portion of Illinois' long-arm statute that authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction in any action against a defendant “doing business within this State.”[iii] Aspen went even further and closed off another avenue of jurisdiction by holding that a company does not consent to general jurisdiction in Illinois by registering to do business in Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983.

In Aspen, plaintiff filed a subrogation suit alleging breach of contract and negligence based on damage to goods in a warehouse in Michigan. The Illinois Supreme Court held it had no jurisdiction over defendant, an Indiana corporation, based on the fact that it did business through a warehouse in Illinois. The warehouse in Illinois was insufficient to show consent to the exercise of general jurisdiction. The court further raised and ruled on an issue of first impression in the Illinois Supreme Court, noting the provisions of the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983[iv] do not require foreign corporations to consent to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in Illinois.

The court applied Daimler AG v. Bauman,[v] a decision of the United States Supreme Court which distinguished between specific and general jurisdiction. In cases involving specific jurisdiction, a state can establish jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action arose out of or occurred within the jurisdiction. General jurisdiction is based on the principal that a defendant may be sued where they are domiciled. In cases involving a corporation, a corporation is domiciled where they are incorporated, where they have their principal place of business, or when their connection to the forum state is so substantial that it is deemed an “exceptional” case. To illustrate what is meant by an “exceptional case,” the United States Supreme Court in Daimler pointed to Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.[vi] In that case, the defendant corporation was forced to relocate temporarily from the Philippines to Ohio because of World War II.[vii] Ohio was thus “the center of the corporation’s wartime activities” and, effectively, a “surrogate for the place of incorporation or head office.”[viii] As such, the defendant corporation was subject to general jurisdiction in that state.[ix]

Subsequent to Aspen, Illinois courts have continuously rejected plaintiff’s attempts at asserting general jurisdiction over corporate non-resident defendants.

In Jeffs v. Ford Motor Co., plaintiff argued that because defendant registered to do business in Illinois under the Business Corporation Act of 1983[x] and because defendant had a registered agent in Illinois for service of process, it “subjected itself to the jurisdiction and laws of Illinois.”[xi] Plaintiff also argued Ford, having conducted substantial business in Illinois, is essentially at home in Illinois. The court, citing to Daimler and Aspen – and in particular – finding Aspen controlling and informative as to the narrow definition of general personal jurisdiction in Illinois, disagreed on both accounts.

In Torio v. Davidson Surface/Air, Inc.,[xii] the plaintiff argued the defendant's occasional pickups, deliveries, and its utilization of Illinois roads and highways was sufficient to establish that the defendant has sufficient continuous and systematic contacts within the state to make it subject to general personal jurisdiction in Illinois. The defendant argued it should not be subject to personal jurisdiction because its contacts were so sporadic and on an as-needed basis such that it was not at home in Illinois. The court, in applying the Aspen decision, concluded the defendant should not be subject to general personal jurisdiction because the defendant’s business in Illinois fell far below the standard of an exceptional circumstance found in Perkins.

In a case heard by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Congdon v., Inc. et al., [xiii] the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction based on Aspen. In Congdon, plaintiffs suffered injuries when they were involved in an automobile accident in Mexico during a vacation booked through the defendants. The vehicle was being operated by an employee of the defendants at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were “doing business” in Cook County, Illinois because they sold travel packages through the internet and telephone sales. However, none of the defendants were Illinois corporations and none had their principal place of business in Illinois. The Court, citing to Aspen, determined that the Illinois long-arm statute cannot constitutionally be applied to establish general jurisdiction where there is no evidence that the defendants’ contacts with Illinois have rendered it “essentially at home” in Illinois.   

A more recent trend that seems to have resulted from the Aspen decisionis an attempt to expand specific personal jurisdiction instead of arguing for general jurisdiction. In Zamora v. Lewis, et al.,plaintiffs filed suit in Cook County against multiple entities as a result of two deaths caused by a fire at a rented home in Maine. [xiv] The suit focused on the smoke detectors installed in the rented home. The court referenced the Aspen opinion, noting it requires a defendant to have affiliations with the forum state that are so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant “at home” there. The court further indicated that plaintiffs were not arguing the court had general jurisdiction over the defendants, but instead that the court had specific jurisdiction over the defendants. The appellate court concluded that in order to have specific jurisdiction there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy and there must be an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State before they can be subject to the State’s regulation. When there is no such connection, the State lacks specific jurisdiction regardless of the extent of the defendant’s unconnected activities in the State. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of defendants based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.

In Dixon v. GAA Classic Cars, LLC, [xv] an Illinois resident e-mailed the defendant, a North Carolina based company that live-streamed auto auctions, about an on-line advertisement for a 1973 Ford Bronco. The two communicated about the vehicle on multiple occasions via e-mail, text message, and phone calls. Ultimately, plaintiff’s bid for the vehicle was accepted. When plaintiff received the vehicle, it had several issues and plaintiff sued for fraud. The court found the defendant was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Illinois. The appellate court held that Illinois courts could exercise jurisdiction over the defendant due to the nature and quality of the communications between the parties about the vehicle, the fact that the defendant actually engaged in a nationwide advertising campaign for its auction website, and because the defendant received payment from plaintiff through its website. 

As demonstrated by Aspen and cases following its precedent, non-resident companies may be able to avoid suit altogether in Illinois when specific jurisdiction cannot be established. Thus, plaintiffs may attempt to expand specific jurisdiction or plaintiffs might be forced to bring suit elsewhere, perhaps in less-favorable jurisdictions that they would otherwise attempt to avoid. This may be particularly relevant in mass tort cases, strict product liability cases, transportation cases, or cases involving internet related businesses. As plaintiff and defense attorneys continue to adjust to the framework for establishing personal jurisdiction in Illinois, it is important to keep the Illinois Supreme Court’s straightforward Aspen opinion in mind for all cases, as the court made no exception for certain types of claims or defendants.


[i] Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc., 2017 IL 121281

[ii] Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

[iii] Baker v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10300, *6 n5

[iv] 805 ILCS 5/1.01 et seq. (2012)

[v] Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)

[vi] Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952)

[vii] Perkins, 342 U.S. at 447-48

[viii] Daimler, 571 U.S. at n.8 (quoting Arthur T. von Mehren & Donald T. Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1121, 1144 (1966)).

[ix] Perkins, 342 U.S. at 448

[x] 805 ILCS 5/1.01 et seq. (2012)

[xi] Jeffs v. Ford Motor Company2018 IL App (5th) 150529-U, 13

[xii] Torio v. Davidson Surface/Air, Inc., 2018 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 375

[xiii] Congdon v., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182500

[xiv] Zamora v. Lewis, et al., 2019 Ill. App. (1st) 181642

[xv] Dixon v. GAA Classic Cars, LLC, 2019 Ill. App. (1st) 182416


About Us

Cassiday Schade is a litigation law firm headquartered in Chicago, with a presence throughout the Midwest. We focus on providing our clients with exceptional and efficient representation and act as national or regional counsel for clients facing nationwide exposures.

With experience in virtually all areas of civil litigation, we have a diverse client base and our attorneys provide companies of various sizes with extensive trial experience and case preparation acumen. Throughout our history, we have represented individuals and companies in a variety of industries, including long-term care, insurance, financial services, manufacturing, construction, professional services and transportation. In addition to trial and appellate work, we provide both organizations and individuals with the tools to analyze and prevent risk before litigation arises.

We take pride in working with our clients and not just for them. Every case is different, and determining the best possible outcome is what our attorneys deliver. Sometimes this means aggressive preparation for trial, other times it may involve seeking an early resolution through alternative means, such as mediation or arbitration. Ultimately, our clients receive the benefit of having their matters handled with maximum efficiency and skill.



Cassiday Schade’s Admiralty & Maritime practice group represents clients in a wide range of maritime matters and understands the legal complexities that are an integral part of the marine industry.

At Cassiday Schade, we recognize the important distinction between trial and appellate work and the need for appellate specialists. Our attorneys have outstanding research, writing and oral advocacy skills and bring an original perspective and tailored strategy to each appeal. A significant portion of our strategy includes analyzing whether or not an appeal is the best course of action for our clients. Our practice group provides an appellate perspective when issues arise at trial, including the introduction of prejudicial evidence by an opponent, an opponent's efforts to limit the introduction of evidence favorable to the defense and jury instructions. We also become involved after litigation concludes, and offer guidance on post-trial motions and responses.

Cassiday Schade’s Civil Rights & Correctional Healthcare practice is dedicated to providing expert, cost-effective legal defense to correctional healthcare employers, as well as the doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers they employ. Our attorneys aren’t just excellent litigators, we are also industry experts and are intimately acquainted with trends, changes and legal developments that may impact our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Commercial attorneys serve as advocates and business advisors to clients from a wide range of industries including banking, real estate financing and investment, health care, automobile sales and finance, financial services, insurance, manufacturing, and construction.

The representation of contractors, developers and design professionals has been a focus of Cassiday Schade since the inception of the firm. The depth of our experience covers the broad spectrum of all points where construction and the law intersect. Our list of clients includes the largest general contractors in Illinois as well as owners, architects, engineers and specialty subcontractors. We routinely represent these companies in their biggest and most problematic cases. While we have the ability to staff large accounts, we keep our client teams small so that our attorneys remain familiar with the client’s background and needs. This ensures efficiency and consistency in our representation of our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Employment practice group represents organizations in a wide range of employment related disputes. As part of our litigation strategy, our attorneys provide an early assessment of each case to determine the best avenue toward resolution, considering both the nature and potential exposure of the claim and the needs of the client.

Cassiday Schade’s Environmental and Toxic Injury practice group serves clients who are, or may be, exposed to claims arising from the manufacture, sale or use of potentially toxic and hazardous substances, and to the threat of litigation arising from environmental claims attendant to land, air and water pollution. Our firm is often retained to handle not only the litigation of active lawsuits, but to monitor litigation for nationwide corporations, advise corporations on risk reduction and coordinate the nationwide defense strategy for corporations facing toxic tort, product liability and other commercial issues. Our success is determined by a skilled team of attorneys with industry acumen and access to a large network of experts and consultants. No matter the issue, our overarching goal is the same: to bring our clients the best possible result through proactive and individualized service.

The family law practice at Cassiday Schade covers a broad spectrum of work, from simple separation agreements to the most intricate and delicate situations. Our success stems from the precision, persistence and care to which we apply ourselves with respect to the law, as well as the ability to communicate thoroughly and compassionately with our clients, from the initial consultation to the final agreement or judicial ruling.

Cassiday Schade’s Hospitality and Retail practice represents a wide-range of clients in complex litigation matters, including hotels and hotel chains, hotel management companies, hotel property owners, franchisees, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, and event production companies. In addition, our skilled team of attorneys is committed to providing our clients with guidance and risk-management strategies to avoid future litigation. This includes but is not limited to, legal counseling, alternative dispute resolution and pre suit negotiations.

Cassiday Schade’s Insurance practice group provides full-service litigation, transactional and alternative dispute resolution capabilities to insurance carriers and other commercial entities. Our expert team of attorneys is focused on providing clients with prompt, direct advice regarding the risks presented in any given situation, both preventively and when litigation arises. Our team also frequently utilizes litigation alternatives such as contractual resolutions, standstill agreements and mediation, all of which can be of great assistance in complex insurance matters.

We represent some of the nation’s top hospitals and other healthcare providers in the successful defense of malpractice litigation. The actions we defend are approached with the highest level of professional consideration and we have tried hundreds of cases to verdict in over 50 counties nationally. Our industry expertise and innovative use of technology to create demonstrative evidence during trial provides clients with the most successful defense possible. We also have access to a network of the most qualified consultants and experts who provide guidance and work closely with our team of attorneys on these lawsuits.

Cassiday Schade’s Nursing Home & Long-Term Care practice group represents nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospices, home health care agencies and rehabilitation centers. At the core of our practice is an understanding of the difficulty inherent in effectively addressing the quality of care provided to individuals whose health is compromised. Our attorneys are a dedicated group of litigators with extensive industry knowledge of OBRA Regulations, the Illinois Administrative Code and the Nursing Home Care Act. We are committed to partnering with our clients in the investigation, planning, direction and defense of a case to determine the most efficient and practical resolution.

Cassiday Schade’s Products Liability practice group has extensive knowledge of state and federal product liability laws and the applicable standards governing the design, manufacture and distribution of products. Our attorneys’ first step is product identification, specifically to examine our clients’ involvement in the design, manufacture, and/or distribution. This includes following paper trails and pursuing investigation to locate and preserve evidence. We also immediately analyze whether any legal defenses, such as statutes of limitations or repose, can be asserted. Our experience in the industry provides us with access to the most sophisticated experts. We act quickly to retain the best consultants, provide them with all applicable materials and obtain their input in order to present the best legal and technical defense.

Professional liability cases are often complex, both factually and procedurally. Cassiday Schade’s Professional Liability practice group services a wide range of clients including accountants, architects and engineers, attorneys, nursing homes, officers and directors, paramedics and psychologists. Our attorneys realize the importance of understanding burdens of proof, standards of care and the need to promptly identify the right consultants and experts. We stay abreast of case law and developments in the profession so that we can bring the highest level of knowledge and understanding to a given case. Our practice team involves our clients in all aspects of litigation, keeping them informed and seeking their input.

Cassiday Schade’s Transportation practice group represents motor carriers, owners, operators, trucking companies and insurance carriers in what are often catastrophic accidents involving trucks, trains, buses, vans, automobiles and other modes of transportation. Our rapid response team of attorneys, accident reconstructionists and transportation investigators is on-call 24 hours a day and can be immediately dispatched to preserve and document physical evidence, inspect vehicles and perform a download of the electronic control module. We also frequently defend cases where the first notice is the lawsuit. Our attorneys perform early assessments of both the liability and damage aspects of each case. This analysis often leads to an early resolution by way of alternative dispute methods including mediation.



Anticipated Prejudgment Interest In Illinois

On March 18, 2021, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill to amend 735 ILCS 5/2-1303 to require prejudgment interest on all personal injury and wrongful death matters in which a judgment is entered for the plaintiff. This bill is expected to be signed by Governor Pritzker and become effective on July 1, 2021. ... [ read more ]

view all