Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 September 2017
• Docket Number: Docket No. 121281
• Citation: 90 N.E.3d 440,2017 IL 121281
• Parties: ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING, INC., Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2017 IL 121281

90 N.E.3d 440

ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee,

v.INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING, INC., Appellant.

Docket No. 121281

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed September 21, 2017.

Kimberly A. Jansen, of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Timothy S. McGovern and Daniel G. Wills, of Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP, of Chicago, for appellee.

Craig H. Zimmerman and Michael W. Weaver, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Michele Odorizzi, Richard F. Bulger, and Gary A. Isaac, of Mayer Brown LLP, and Tobin J. Taylor, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., all of Chicago, for amici curiae Certainteed Corporation et al.

Leslie J. Rosen, of Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, of Chicago, and Jeffrey White, of American Association for Justice, of Washington, D.C., amicus curiae.

JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiff, Aspen American Insurance Company, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County in which it alleged that the roof of a Michigan warehouse owned by the defendant, Interstate Warehousing, Inc., had collapsed, causing the destruction of goods owned by plaintiff's insured, Eastern Fish Company. Defendant, an Indiana corporation, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). The circuit court denied the motion, and a divided appellate court affirmed. 2016 IL App (1st) 151876, 404 Ill.Dec. 897, 57 N.E.3d 656. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgments of the lower courts.

¶ 2 Background

¶ 3 Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following. Eastern Fish Company (Eastern) is a New Jersey-based corporation that sources and imports fish products. In 2013, Eastern contracted with defendant to store some of its fish products in a refrigerated warehouse near Grand Rapids, Michigan. On March 8, 2014, part of the warehouse's roof collapsed, causing ruptured gas lines and an ammonia leak. The leak contaminated the fish products that were stored in the warehouse, rendering them unfit for human consumption. Plaintiff, which insures Eastern, paid Eastern's claim for the loss and, in exchange, received subrogation rights.

¶ 4 On July 14, 2014, plaintiff filed this subrogation action against defendant in the circuit court of Cook County. Plaintiff's complaint sets forth various causes of action, including breach of contract and negligence, and asserts that defendant is responsible for the loss of Eastern's fish products. The complaint also alleges that defendant "maintain[s] a facility in or near Chicago."

¶ 5 Attached to plaintiff's complaint are several documents: a series of letters between defendant and Eastern's attorneys in which the roof collapse is discussed, a copy of the warehousing contract between defendant and Eastern, and a printout of the masthead from defendant's website. The letterhead of defendant's correspondence and the warehousing contract both state that defendant's corporate office is located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In addition, the letterhead, contract, and website masthead all contain a list of eight warehouses operated by defendant throughout the country. These include the Michigan warehouse that is at issue in this case; a warehouse in Joliet, Illinois; two warehouses in Indiana; and other warehouses in Colorado, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia.

¶ 6 Defendant filed a motion to quash service and dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to section 2-301 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-301 (West 2012) ). In the motion, defendant did not dispute that it was doing business in Illinois through the warehouse located in Joliet. However, defendant asserted that this was insufficient to subject it to general personal jurisdiction in Illinois. Rather, according to defendant, under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014), plaintiff was required to show that defendant is domiciled or "at home" in Illinois in order to establish jurisdiction. Defendant maintained that plaintiff had not met this standard.

¶ 7 Attached to defendant's motion to dismiss were an affidavit from Jeff Hastings, defendant's chief financial officer, and Ryan Shaffer, the general manager of the Joliet warehouse. In his affidavit, Hastings states that defendant is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Hastings further states that defendant is "a 75% member of" Interstate Warehousing of Illinois, LLC, a limited liability company organized under Indiana law, which also maintains its principal place of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana. According to Hastings's affidavit, Interstate Warehousing of Illinois "operates" the Joliet warehouse, while Ryan Shaffer, an employee of defendant, is the general manager. In his affidavit, Ryan Shaffer confirms that he is the general manager of the Joliet warehouse, is responsible for its day-to-day operations, and is employed by defendant.

¶ 8 Plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion to dismiss in which it argued that, because defendant was doing business in Illinois through the Joliet warehouse, it was subject to general personal jurisdiction in this state. According to plaintiff, defendant could, therefore, be sued on causes of action unrelated to its activities in Illinois. Included with plaintiff's response was a printout of a "corporation file detail report" from the Illinois Secretary of State's website. The report indicates that defendant is an Indiana corporation that has been registered to do business in Illinois since 1988. Plaintiff submitted no further filings in the circuit court and made no discovery requests.¹

¶ 9 Following a hearing at which no testimony was taken, the circuit court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed. 2016 IL App (1st) 151876, 404 Ill.Dec. 897, 57 N.E.3d 656. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of general personal jurisdiction and that defendant had failed to overcome this showing with contrary evidence. Justice Lampkin dissented, finding that, in light of Daimler , plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Id. at ¶¶ 64-72 (Lampkin, J., dissenting).

¶ 10 We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Mar. 5, 2016). In addition, we allowed the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice to file a joint amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff, and we allowed Certainteed Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc., and Union Carbide Corporation to file a joint amicus curiae brief in support of defendant. Ill. S. Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010).

¶ 11 Analysis

¶ 12 The plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Russell v. SNFA , 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 28, 370 Ill.Dec. 12, 987 N.E.2d 778 (citing Wiggen v. Wiggen , 2011 IL App (2d) 100982, ¶ 20), 352 Ill.Dec. 572, 954 N.E.2d 432. Where, as here, the circuit court has determined that the plaintiff has met its burden based solely on documentary evidence, our review is de novo . Id. On review, any conflicts in the pleadings and supporting affidavits will be resolved in the plaintiff's favor but uncontradicted evidence offered by the defendant may defeat jurisdiction. Id.

¶ 13 In Illinois, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants is authorized under the "long-arm" statute found in section 2-209 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-209 (West 2012) ). Plaintiff contends that subsection (c) of the statute supports a finding of jurisdiction here. That provision states that a court may exercise jurisdiction on any "basis now or hereafter permitted by the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States." 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c) (West 2012). Thus, to determine whether jurisdiction is appropriate under subsection (c), we must consider the constitutional limits placed on a state's authority to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Because defendant in this case does not argue that the Illinois Constitution imposes any greater restraints on the exercise of jurisdiction than the federal constitution, we consider only federal constitutional principles. Russell , 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 12, 987 N.E.2d 778.

¶ 14 The United States Supreme Court has held that the federal due process clause permits a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ " International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) ). Two types of personal jurisdiction are subject to the due process analysis: specific and general. Specific jurisdiction is case-specific. That is, specific jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Russell , 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 40, 370 Ill.Dec. 12, 987 N.E.2d 778 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) ). In contrast, general jurisdiction is all-purpose. Where general jurisdiction exists, the plaintiff may pursue a claim against the defendant even if the conduct of the defendant that is being challenged occurred entirely outside the forum state. Id. ¶ 36 (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 924, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) ). In this case, plaintiff does not complain of any conduct committed by defendant in Illinois. Thus, only general jurisdiction is at issue here.

¶ 15 Plaintiff...