Listen to this post

We previously reported that the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Martin v. Goodrich Corp., upholding the constitutionality of a 2019 amendment to the Illinois Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (the “Act”).1 Since then, the Seventh Circuit has recognized the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling as an “unequivocal determination” of Illinois law and allowed a plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed as exempt from the Act’s exclusivity provisions.

Seventh Circuit’s Affirmation of Martin

After the Illinois Supreme Court accepted and answered the certified questions on January 24, 2025, the Seventh Circuit ordered the parties to “file statements of their positions about what action this court should take to complete the resolution of the appeal.”2

On February 13, 2025, Martin requested the Seventh Circuit affirm the District Court’s denial of Goodrich’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings on the merits. Martin argued the basis for Goodrich’s interlocutory appeal—to reverse the denial of its motion to dismiss—lacked merit given the Illinois Supreme Court’s answers to the certified questions. On February 14, 2025, Goodrich stated “this appeal is resolved” because the Illinois Supreme Court’s answers addressed the issues and questions raised by the Seventh Circuit.

On February 28, 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Goodrich’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Illinois Supreme Court’s responses to the certified questions “make clear that the ODA does not bar Martin’s suit from proceeding.” The Seventh Circuit noted the undisputed fact that Martin’s last exposure occurred more than two years prior to his angiosarcoma diagnosis. Therefore, because “[t]he plain language of section 1(f)’s repose provision” bars Martin from seeking compensation from Goodrich under the Act, section 1.1 exempts her tort claims from the Act’s exclusivity provisions. Accordingly, her civil claims may proceed.

The Seventh Circuit echoed the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding that neither section 1.1’s “prospective sweep” nor the Illinois constitution’s due process clause bar this result. Martin’s diagnosis after the enactment of section 1.1 is sufficient to fall within section 1.1’s prospective scope. Further, because Goodrich did not have a vested right in an exclusivity defense under the Act, the enactment of an exception to that defense does not violate Goodrich’s due process rights. Thus, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

  1. See 820 ILCS 310/1 et seq.; Martin v. Goodrich Corp., 2025 IL 130509. ↩︎
  2. Pursuant to Order, dated January 24, 2025, and in accordance with Circuit Rule 52(b). ↩︎
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Brittany Lomax Brittany Lomax

Brittany’s practice focuses on commercial litigation, product liability, product safety, and toxic tort matters. She works closely with in-house counsel teams—particularly those in the manufacturing, healthcare, and aerospace industries—to develop trial and defense strategies and protect the business interests of large companies.

Photo of Destinee Burrell Destinee Burrell

Destinee decided she would be a lawyer when she was five years old. Her childhood dream never faded, and she spent her education and training focusing on honing her writing skills. As a result, once she decided to officially pursue a legal career,

Destinee decided she would be a lawyer when she was five years old. Her childhood dream never faded, and she spent her education and training focusing on honing her writing skills. As a result, once she decided to officially pursue a legal career, she knew she had one of the key skills needed for success.

Photo of Jen Dlugosz Jen Dlugosz

Jen focuses her practice on defending businesses in toxic tort and product liability matters in some of the most dangerous jurisdictions across the United States. In addition to product liability and toxic tort experience, Jen’s broad range of litigation experience…

Jen focuses her practice on defending businesses in toxic tort and product liability matters in some of the most dangerous jurisdictions across the United States. In addition to product liability and toxic tort experience, Jen’s broad range of litigation experience includes commercial litigation, white collar investigations, qui tam litigation, insurance litigation and contract disputes. Jen also maintains an active pro bono practice.

Photo of Julie Friedman Julie Friedman

With nearly 20 years of experience in the toxic tort practice area, Julie has defended manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors, including Fortune 500 companies, in mass and toxic tort litigation, with an emphasis on asbestos litigation and high exposure cases. As national coordinating counsel…

With nearly 20 years of experience in the toxic tort practice area, Julie has defended manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors, including Fortune 500 companies, in mass and toxic tort litigation, with an emphasis on asbestos litigation and high exposure cases. As national coordinating counsel for a multinational conglomerate corporation, she has tried cases to verdict in state and federal courts across the country. Julie also plays an integral role in developing and driving nationwide litigation strategy for the same client.

In addition to her national trial work, Julie serves as local counsel to various clients in the West Virginia and western Pennsylvania area, handling cases from inception through settlement negotiations. She is highly experienced at representing defendants in notoriously difficult jurisdictions.

Julie is known for her effective communication style: she has a gift for explaining detailed scientific and legal matters in a way that jurors can readily understand, and she easily builds trust in the courtroom. She places a high priority on developing and maintaining in-depth knowledge of the science and medicine behind clients’ cases, making her a better advocate and a more effective strategist. Clients also appreciate Julie’s ability, honed through decades of experience, to consider both the intricate details and the broader picture of each case. She instinctively understands how each piece of litigation fits in with a nationwide strategy.

Most of all, though, Julie has a strong reputation for caring deeply about clients. No client is ever just a number to her, and she aims to build lasting relationships over many years, investing deeply in clients’ success.