Listen to this post

Senate Bill 328, as amended, makes significant changes to the law governing jurisdiction in Illinois, which would change Illinois from a specific jurisdiction state to a general jurisdiction state for actions that allege injury or illness resulting from exposure to a toxic substance. Per the Uniform Hazardous Substances Act of Illinois, “toxic” is defined as “any substance (other than radioactive substance) which has the capacity to produce bodily injury or illness to man through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface.” Senate Bill 328, with end of session amendments, passed both chambers as of June 1, 2025. Governor JB Pritzker is expected to sign the legislation into law.

Senate Bill 328, as amended, provides the following:

  • An Illinois court may now exercise general jurisdiction in any action arising within or outside the State of Illinois against a foreign business corporation that has consented to general jurisdiction in this State in accordance with the Business Corporation Act of 1983 but only if (1) the action alleges injury or illness resulting from a exposure to a toxic substance and (2) as long as jurisdiction is proper as to one or more named co-defendants under the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • A corporation that obtains or continues to maintain the right to do business in the State consents to the exercise of general jurisdiction by the courts of Illinois.
  • A corporation consents to general jurisdiction upon registering to do business in Illinois at any time following the effective date of the legislation.
  • A corporation that has previously registered to business in Illinois consents to general jurisdiction upon the next date after the effective date of the amendatory Act on which the filing of its annual report is due regardless of whether or not it then files its annual report.
  • Finally, the legislation provides that a foreign corporation transacting business without authority to operate by the State of Illinois is deemed to have consented to general jurisdiction to the same extent as if it were registered to do business in Illinois. Consent to such general jurisdiction begins upon the corporation committing an act constituting a transaction of business at any time after the effective date of the Act and remains effective for 180 days following the committing of each act.

Businesses should be aware of this likely change in Illinois law which expands Illinois courts’ reach over out of state businesses.

As of the date of publication, Senate Bill 328 has not yet been enrolled, which is the process of incorporating all amendments after passage in both chambers. The analysis provided here is based on the House Amendment adopted by both chambers that replaces the original language of Senate Bill 328.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Sarah M. Davis Sarah M. Davis

Sarah began her legal career at the start of the second wave of asbestos cases: it was 2001, and a partner assigned her to a handful of matters in a practice area that conventional wisdom believed was on its way out. Instead, asbestos…

Sarah began her legal career at the start of the second wave of asbestos cases: it was 2001, and a partner assigned her to a handful of matters in a practice area that conventional wisdom believed was on its way out. Instead, asbestos litigation quickly took off, and Sarah found herself handling a higher case volume than any of the more experienced attorneys in her office, with multiple trial settings every week and a docket of more than 10,000 plaintiffs. The baptism of fire gave her hands-on experience early in her career with all aspects of litigation and trial, rapidly teaching her the ins and outs of the mass tort world.

In addition to 20+ years as a Texas asbestos attorney, Sarah also served as a state representative from 2011-2021 while continuing to practice law. She had the opportunity in the state legislature to author portions of the asbestos tort reform that governs Texas asbestos cases today: in other words, Sarah doesn’t just know the law; she’s also the one who wrote it.

Today, Sarah devotes the majority of her practice to Texas asbestos litigation, primarily representing contractors. She has experience in all types of motion practice and is a seasoned mediator who has also tried a number of cases to verdict. Over the course of her career, she’s picked hundreds of juries, and she knows the practice inside and out. After two decades in the field, she’s built relationships with most plaintiff’s attorneys, and she’s deeply familiar with the thinking of the MDL judge who rules on nearly all Texas asbestos cases.

Sarah is known as a straight talker who deals fairly and honestly with clients and with opposing counsel. She often represents the same clients for many years, building loyal long-term relationships, and she aims not only to solve clients’ problems, but to make clients’ jobs easier along the way.

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.

Photo of Michael Klebanov Michael Klebanov

Clients turn to Michael for high-stakes class action defense and appellate litigation. With his expertise in bet-the-company class actions, he defends a variety of challenges to companies’ practices and products, including claims based on breach of contract, warranties, product mislabeling and misrepresentation, deceptive…

Clients turn to Michael for high-stakes class action defense and appellate litigation. With his expertise in bet-the-company class actions, he defends a variety of challenges to companies’ practices and products, including claims based on breach of contract, warranties, product mislabeling and misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices, negligence, RICO and securities violations. Michael also has multidistrict litigation (MDL) experience.