Jurisdiction: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District

In October 2017, Donald Taylor (decedent) and his wife, Melissa Taylor (plaintiff) filed a complaint following the decedent’s development and diagnosis of mesothelioma.

According to the Taylors, the decedent’s illness was the result of take-home asbestos exposure related to his father’s employment as a parts and services manager at an automobile dealership in Alton, Illinois. The decedent also alleged exposure from assisting his father with automotive and home-remodeling jobs. Plaintiff was appointed as special administrator to the estate following the decedent’s death in 2019.

At the circuit court level, defendant Japan Brake unsuccessfully argued it was not subject to specific personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to show that it purposefully availed itself to the benefits and protections of Illinois law or that the cause of action arose from any acts Japan Brake performed in the State of Illinois. It claimed that it never manufactured, sold, or distributed its products in the United States during the relevant period and that it did not market or advertise its products or solicit business for its products the State of Illinois.

According to plaintiff, Japan Brake was in the business of manufacturing brake pads, brake linings, and other friction materials as components for parts used in passenger vehicles, and that Japan Brake knew its components would either be installed as original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts in passenger vehicles sold and distributed throughout the entire United States or distributed and sold as genuine aftermarket service parts in all 50 states. Moreover, plaintiff asserted that Japan Brake was: a sophisticated, large-scale manufacturer of automotive component parts, that Japan Brake introduced its products into the stream of commerce with certainty that those products would arrive in Illinois, and that Japan Brake intentionally targeted Illinois through state safety commissions and motor vehicle associations whose approval was necessary to sell its products in the Illinois market.

On appeal, Japan Brake argued that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that Japan Brake had jurisdictionally significant contacts, whether direct or indirect, for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. Additionally, it alleged plaintiff failed to establish that her cause of action arose out of or was related to Japan Brake’s purported contacts or activities in Illinois. Lastly, Japan Brake contended it would be unreasonable to require the company to litigate the plaintiff’s action in the State of Illinois.

The appellate court recognized that specific jurisdiction requires a showing that a nonresident defendant purposefully directed its activities at the forum state, and that the suit arose from alleged injuries that arose out of or related to said activities.  See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). As such, a nonresident defendant may be subjected to the forum state’s jurisdiction based on “single or occasional acts” in the forum state but only with respect to an occurrence related to those acts. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011) (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318). In additional, the “purposeful availment” requirements of Burger King protects a nonresident defendant from being brought into a jurisdiction based on random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the unilateral activity of another person.  471 U.S. at 475.

The appellate court recognized that under federal due process principles, “a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the forum state so that ‘the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Taylor v. Japan Brake Indus. Co., 2026 Ill. App. LEXIS 350, *18 citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). According to Illinois law, the minimum contacts requirement for specific jurisdiction may be satisfied under the stream-of-commerce theory.  See Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909, 43 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980); Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432 (1961)).

In World-Wide Volkswagen, the Supreme Court held “[t]he forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectations that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State. 444 U.S. 1t 297-98 (citing Gray, 22 Ill. 2d 432). As such, the Supreme Court reasoned that when a corporation “purposefully avails itself” of having the privilege to conduct activities within the forum State, the corporation has “clear notice” that it will be subject to suit in that forum.  World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297.

After evaluating the tremendous evidence purported by the plaintiff, the appellate court determined the plaintiff made a sufficient showing that Japan Brake had the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Illinois for the purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. It found:

Japan Brake is in the business of making component brake parts for Honda and Mazda vehicle made in Japan and distributed in the United States and other markets.  In order to satisfy the demands of its corporate customers, Japan Brake tailored a product line of OEM and replacement brake parts to meet the American performance and safety standards required for use on vehicles intended for distribution and sale throughout the United States, including Illinois. Japan Brake knew that once it placed its customized parts into the stream of commerce in Japan, the distribution network established by Honda and Mazda would carry those parts into the United States for sale in all fifty states, including Illinois. Thus, the respective distribution networks of Honda and Mazda constitute the pipelines through which the customized brake products reached…the United States.

The court went on to find that, through all these decisions and actions, Japan Brake purposefully directed its activities at Illinois and thereby derived some benefit from the states’ law and business climate. By demonstrating these facts to the appellate court, the plaintiff was deemed to have met her burden showing her claims arose out of or were related to Japan Brake’s contacts with the State of Illinois.

Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgement was affirmed.

Read the full decision here