
Timothy J. Cavanagh: Illinois toxic tort law would prevent out-of-state companies from evading accountability
Out-of-state companies too often escape accountability for exposing individuals to dangerous materials, leaving them to suffer devastating health consequences with little legal recourse short of the expensive, time-consuming and impractical option of pursuing lawsuits in those other states.
A bill, SB328, recently passed by the General Assembly and now under Gov. JB Pritzker's consideration, solves that dilemma by permitting a person filing a case in an Illinois court to include out-of-state companies as defendants.
By strengthening the ability of Illinois residents to seek justice against all responsible parties, this legislation would help promote healthier, safer working conditions by putting businesses, regardless of where they are headquartered, on notice that they are responsible for protecting Illinoisans from preventable harms.
To be clear, this legislation applies in relatively limited circumstances. SB328 does not expose Illinois-based businesses to litigation to which they are not already subject under current law. To involve companies not located in the state, but doing business here, a plaintiff must first file a case in Illinois against at least one defendant that would be subject to the specific jurisdiction of an Illinois court. Only then, contingent upon a judge's approval, could other relevant out-of-state businesses be added to the case.
Additionally, this legislation pertains only to toxic substances as defined by the Illinois Uniform Hazardous Substances Act. One such example familiar to most people would be asbestos, because of its sad and long history in our country of sickening hundreds of thousands of people and condemning them to prolonged and painful deaths.
If you've seen the suffering caused by the careless use of asbestos up close, you would understand why it is important to send a strong message that companies using toxic substances need to take sufficient care to protect people from being harmed by them. And, if they fail to do so, they deserve significant financial punishment to deter them and others from persisting in unsafe practices.
The fearmongering from Illinois business organizations about the bill borders on hysteria. Despite what they say, prescription drugs, baby formula, beverages and food products are not a part of the bill for the simple reason they aren't made with highly toxic ingredients.
Opponents also say New York rejected the same bill. Not true. New York's was far more expansive and, beyond businesses, included nonprofits and governmental entities.
Finally, those against the bill argue it would make Illinois an outlier. But, in reality, other states have laws that say anyone transacting business in them consents to the jurisdiction of their courts. Pennsylvania already has a far broader toxic tort law than what is proposed in Illinois, and I have yet to see any news coverage about the cessation of business in the Steel City, the City of Brotherly Love or all the many towns between the two.
Opposition from Illinois corporate associations to this legislation is puzzling, since it actually levels the playing field for Illinois companies by holding those from out of state to the same standard as applies to those that are based here.
The bill's merits are attested to by the diversity of its supporters, which include dozens of trade and service unions represented by the Illinois AFL-CIO; the multitude of local and national environmental organizations that work collaboratively through the Illinois Environmental Council; and Citizen Action, the state's largest public interest organization that advocates for policies to protect the health and well-being of all Illinoisans.
By reinforcing corporate accountability, this bill complements Illinois' ongoing efforts to strengthen environmental protections and public health safeguards. It sends a clear message and commonsense message: Companies that profit from doing business here must accept the responsibility of protecting the people and environment they impact.
With the Donald Trump administration choosing to stop enforcing various environmental protections and, shockingly, reconsidering the ban on cancer-causing asbestos put in place by the previous administration, it is vital that states step into the breach. Pritzker's signature on SB328 will send a clear message that Illinois is leaving no stone unturned when it comes to protecting the public's health.
Timothy J. Cavanagh is founder of Cavanagh Sorich Law Group in Chicago and president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
a few seconds ago
- Miami Herald
Florida's attorney general appeals judge's contempt finding in immigration case
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has appealed a federal judge's ruling that found him in civil contempt because of a letter he sent in April after she ordered a halt to enforcement of a new state immigration law. Uthmeier's lawyers last week filed a notice of appealing U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams' ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As is common, the notice does not detail arguments that Uthmeier will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court. But the appeal is the latest move in an unusual dispute between Uthmeier and the Miami-based judge. The issue stems from a law, passed during a February special legislative session, that created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. The Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida and two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on April 2, contending, in part, that the law violates what is known as the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Williams on April 4 issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law. She extended the temporary restraining order April 18 and directed Uthmeier to send a letter notifying police agencies that they could not enforce the law. The directive came after reports of arrests. Uthmeier sent such a letter April 18 but followed with an April 23 letter that spurred the contempt issue. Uthmeier has argued that the temporary restraining order — and a longer-lasting preliminary injunction issued later — should only apply to him and local state attorneys because they were the named defendants in the underlying legal challenge to the law (SB 4-C). In the April 23 letter to police agencies, Uthmeier reiterated that position and said he could not prevent police from enforcing the law 'where there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so,' according to Williams' June 17 contempt ruling. Williams said that statement and other wording in the letter violated her order, writing that in a 'variety of ways, Uthmeier's April 23rd letter conveyed to law enforcement that they could and should disregard the April 18th letter's message that they were required by court order to cease enforcement of SB 4-C.' 'Uthmeier's role endows him with a unique capacity to uphold or undermine the rule of law, and when he does the latter by violating a court order, the integrity of the legal system depends on his conduct being within the court's remedial reach,' Williams wrote in the 27-page contempt ruling. In a court filing in May, Uthmeier's lawyers said he complied with the temporary restraining order by not enforcing the law and notifying law-enforcement agencies about the temporary restraining order. The filing said Uthmeier was free to express his disagreement with Williams' decision in the April 23 letter. 'The attorney general has consistently abided by the court's order to cease enforcing (the law),' the document said. 'Nowhere does the TRO (expressly or impliedly) require the attorney general to refrain from sharing his views about the order with law enforcement.' The filing also said Williams' reading of the April 23 letter 'relies on one portion of one sentence, rather than reading (the) letter as a whole and in the context of what preceded it: the April 18 letter' and a legal brief that also was filed April 23. To carry out the contempt finding, Williams ordered Uthmeier to file bi-weekly reports about whether any arrests, detentions or other law-enforcement actions had occurred under the blocked law — filings he has submitted. Williams on April 29 issued a preliminary injunction to continue blocking the law, saying it likely was preempted by federal immigration-enforcement authority. In part, she pointed to the law requiring that violators go to jail and indicated that could conflict with federal authority. Uthmeier also has appealed the preliminary-injunction ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He asked the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction but was turned down. Such a stay would have allowed enforcement of the law while the legal battle plays out.


Bloomberg
a minute ago
- Bloomberg
Stock Movers: Verizon, Opendoor, Lululemon
On this episode of Stock Movers: Listen for comprehensive cross-platform coverage of the US market close as heard on Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg Radio, and YouTube with Romaine Bostick, Scarlet Fu, Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec. - Verizon (VZ) shares rallied after it posted second-quarter revenue that surpassed analysts' estimates and raised its profit outlook, buoyed by wireless price increases and recent tax legislation. Operating revenue was $34.5 billion, up 5.2% from a year earlier, The New York-based carrier said in a statement. Wall Street had been expecting $33.7 billion, on average. Wireless service revenue, which excludes device purchases and upgrades, was $20.9 billion, in line with analysts' projections. The strong performance, as well as 'favorable tax reform,' led Verizon to boost some full-year guidance metrics, including adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization and free cash flow. CEO Hans Vestberg said Verizon has 'momentum and a clear path forward.' - Opendoor (OPEN) shares were halted for volatility during trading today, jumping as much as 121%, extending its gravity-defying rally from last week, as investors continued to pile into the stock that has found a sudden fandom among retail traders and social-media platforms. The stock's triple-digit surge sent shares soaring to $4.97, well-above the $1 level it was bouncing around for the last few months. While shares in the online platform for buying and selling US real estate since pared their rally — closing around 43% higher — it's still its sixth straight day of gains. Trading was briefly halted in the afternoon because of volatility. Opendoor has been the subject of chatter among retail traders on social media in recent days after Eric Jackson, founder of Toronto-based hedge fund EMJ Capital made a series of posts on social media platform X encouraging buying. It was listed as the topmost actively traded stock on Stocktwits Monday afternoon, and was being heavily cited by posters on Reddit's WallStreetBets thread. - Lululemon (LULU) shares slipped today as the athleisure brand continues to suffer from slowing sales. Lululemon's core black leggings, which are vital products that rarely are discounted, are piling up at outlet stores, according to Randal Konik, an analyst at Jefferies. That's an alarming issue for Lululemon, he added, showing erosion in core demand for the brand's clothes. 'We've witnessed signals of a brand in decline and see risks to earnings ahead,' Konik said in a note to clients on Thursday. The analyst, a long-time critic of the company's strategy, has had an underperform rating on Lululemon's stock since 2022.


San Francisco Chronicle
30 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
RBB: Q2 Earnings Snapshot
LOS ANGELES (AP) — LOS ANGELES (AP) — RBB Bancorp (RBB) on Monday reported second-quarter profit of $9.3 million. The Los Angeles-based bank said it had earnings of 52 cents per share. The results beat Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of five analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of 36 cents per share. The bank holding company posted revenue of $62.7 million in the period. Its revenue net of interest expense was $35.8 million, which also beat Street forecasts. Five analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $29.5 million. _____