Illinois

Themis, Greek goddess of justice, holding scales in front of a courthouse

The proper allocation of the burden of proof during closing arguments is a recurring issue in civil litigation. On August 19, 2025, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial in Harrell v. City of Chicago, offering important guidance regarding improper burden shifting during closing arguments. 2025 IL App (1st) 240119, ¶ 83. The ruling makes clear that while parties may highlight unrebutted evidence, only defendants may highlight when an expert was not retained to rebut or prove a specific element of the case.

On August 15, 2025, Governor Pritzker signed Senate Bill 328 into law, effective immediately. The bill makes significant changes to the law governing jurisdiction in Illinois, namely changing 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. 

Since the passage of Senate Bill 328, there has been a movement calling on Illinois Governor Pritzker to veto Senate Bill 328. Advocates for the veto include the American Tort Reform Association, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, and the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. Forty-seven House and Senate Republicans joined the call on June 17, 2025, by filing a lawsuit in Sangamon County, Illinois, Tony McCombie, et al vs. Emmanuel Chris Welch in his Capacity as Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and Don Harmon in his Capacity as President of the Illinois Senate, Case No. 2024MR000281 (Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, Sangamon County, 2025), challenging the constitutionality of the manner in which the legislation was passed.

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.

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.

On January 24, 2025, 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 This decision confirms that Plaintiffs can indeed file civil claims after the 25-year statute of repose period for asbestos claims under Workers’ Compensation has expired. This decision will have a far-reaching impact throughout toxic tort litigation as it allows employees to pursue civil claims against their employers even if their Workers’ Compensation claim would otherwise be barred.

Released yearly in December, the American Tort Reform (ATR) Foundation publishes its annual “Judicial Hellhole” rankings for the upcoming year. The Hellholes represent the worst of the worst jurisdictions to defend tort lawsuits in the United States. The 2024-2025 Judicial Hellhole rankings crown a new #1 Judicial Hellhole (thanks in large part to a 10-figure nuclear verdict that sealed the crown) and also welcome a new member (King County, Washington) to the ranks.

On May 18, 2023, the Illinois General Assembly passed House Bill 219 (Bill) which, if signed by Governor Pritzker, would allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases. Illinois law does not currently permit punitive damages for recovery, only allowing compensatory damages. Suits against state and local government officials will still be exempt from damages if the legislation passes.

On September 27, 2021, after 18 days of trial and a mere hour of deliberations, a City of St. Louis, Missouri jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) on claims of three women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Forrest v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 1522-CC00419-02 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.). Notably, in 2018, a City of St. Louis jury returned a staggering $4.7 billion verdict in favor of 22 woman who claimed that J&J’s asbestos-contaminated talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. 

Illinois Governor Pritzker signed into law Senate Bill 72 (SB 72), which includes prejudgment interest and amends the Illinois Interest on Judgment Act 735 ILCS 2-1303 (Act). The amendment imposes six-percent prejudgment interest on economic and noneconomic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Prior to SB 72’s passing, Illinois generally only recognized post-judgment interest at nine-percent per annum, running from when the judgment was made to the time it was satisfied. Personal injury plaintiffs generally could not recover losses incurred before judgment, but will be able to following SB 72’s effective date on July 1, 2021.