Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Defendant’s ‘Lack of Personal Jurisdiction’ Defense Denied

A Cook County Court will see a case against a North Dakota company, thanks to a momentous order by Honorable Judge Clare E. McWilliams granting personal jurisdiction to the Illinois forum.

The February 20th order in the John C. Clark v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al. case sets a new precedent for Illinois residents seeking trial in their home state and offers a more efficient path to justice in mesothelioma and asbestos cases.

While working as an employee of the Illinois-based United Conveyor Corporation, John C. Clark was contracted for a job for the North Dakota Great River Energy company.  As such, he traveled back and forth between the two states. For the duration of his contract with GRE, Clark was subjected to asbestos exposure both on the job and upon his return home to Illinois, where the “take-home exposure” from asbestos dust on his clothes and shoes continued to damage his lungs.

Seeking relief from his injury, Clark sued GRE in Illinois court, only for the company to attempt to have the case dismissed over a personal jurisdiction dispute.

Judge McWilliams’ order denies GRE’s claims that personal jurisdiction cannot be established in Illinois and company requests to relocate the trial to North Dakota or Minnesota due to their location. Such claims would allow the company to put a greater burden on the injured party, forcing Clark to relocate the case.

In her order, the judge stated that because GRE worked with an Illinois company, and allowed employees to travel back into the state without establishing proper safety precautions that prevented asbestos exposure in Cook County, the case should be tried in an Illinois Court. As Clark’s injury occurred in Illinois, the state will have jurisdiction and be allowed to try the case.

The decision also protects Clark’s chances of obtaining “efficient and effective relief”, allowing him to remain in Illinois and avoid the expenses of multiple lawsuits across state lines.

This development marks a historic victory for asbestos and mesothelioma victims seeking legal recourse. Many employees who have suffered occupational exposure to asbestos traveled out of state for their jobs, frequently in professions like construction or industrial work. A multijurisdictional case, in which a Plaintiff must seek trial in every state in which they worked and suffered exposure, can be lengthy and complicated, causing undue stress and financial difficulty to injured parties seeking justice.

Judge McWilliams’ decision in Clark v. A.W. Chesterton creates a model which future mesothelioma cases may follow and outlines a swift and uncomplicated path to justice for victims of asbestos exposure. Due to the Court’s most recent order, Illinois workers seeking redress for injury inflicted by out-of-state companies may be able to remain in their home state for trial.