What Businesses Should Do Now
A company sued over decades-old asbestos exposure may face an important decision before anyone takes a deposition: whether to challenge the court’s authority to hear the case. For corporations organized outside Illinois, recent developments make that question worth revisiting.
On August 11, 2026, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of a challenge to Senate Bill 328, the legislation expanding jurisdiction over certain out-of-state corporations in toxic exposure cases. The decision in McCombie v. Welch, 2026 IL App (4th) 250971, addressed the legislative process. It did not decide the substantive validity of the law’s jurisdiction provisions.
Effective August 15, 2025, Public Act 104-0352 permits general jurisdiction over a foreign business corporation that has consented under the specified registration or unauthorized-business provisions, but only when two additional conditions are met: the action alleges injury or illness from exposure to a substance defined as toxic under Illinois’ Uniform Hazardous Substances Act, and jurisdiction is proper over at least one named codefendant under section 2-209(a). The claim may arise outside Illinois. 735 ILCS 5/2-209(b)(5).
The timing provisions deserve attention. New registrants consent upon registration after the law’s effective date. Previously registered corporations consent on their next annual-report due date after that date, whether or not they file. A corporation transacting business without required authority is also deemed to consent, beginning with each qualifying act and continuing for 180 days afterward. 805 ILCS 5/13.20(b), 13.70(c-5).
The legislators in McCombie argued that SB 328’s passage violated the Illinois Constitution’s requirement for readings on three different days in each legislative chamber. The appellate court applied the enrolled bill doctrine: legislative leaders’ certification conclusively establishes procedural compliance for this purpose. Bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent, the court declined to revisit that doctrine. It expressly made no finding about whether the three-readings rule had actually been violated. McCombie, ¶¶ 3, 11–15.
The broader constitutional framework also warrants attention. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a due-process challenge to Pennsylvania’s registration-based jurisdiction scheme on the facts presented. The Court’s 2023 decision did not resolve the separate dormant Commerce Clause challenge. Justice Alito’s concurrence identified potential constitutional problems with imposing jurisdiction over disputes unrelated to the forum. Those distinct issues matter when evaluating an argument directed at Illinois’ statute.
For businesses and insurers, these developments call for a more deliberate review when a new claim arrives. Our recommendation is to make jurisdiction part of the initial claim assessment, alongside product identification, exposure history, insurance, and potential liability. Waiting until substantial merits discovery has occurred can complicate an issue that deserves attention at the outset.
Start with the entity actually sued. A corporate group’s familiar trade name may obscure which subsidiary sold a product, performed work, or holds the relevant registration. Obtain the named defendant’s formation documents, registration history, annual-report records, and any pertinent merger or acquisition documents. Ask counsel to compare that chronology with the complaint and service dates. That comparison can identify factual questions before the defense commits to a position.
Examine the asserted Illinois connection of the other defendants as well. Counsel should identify the particular codefendant and alleged conduct on which the plaintiff relies, then evaluate the supporting facts. A complaint’s list of companies provides a starting point for investigation; the statutory condition still needs to be tested. Coordinate that work across the defense team so that decisions about discovery and motions reflect the same understanding of the record.
Preserve objections promptly. Section 2-301 governs challenges to personal jurisdiction, and filing other pleadings or motions first can waive objections, subject to the statute’s exceptions. The appropriate sequence of filings should therefore be settled before a routine response is submitted. 735 ILCS 5/2-301(a), (a-6). Counsel should separately assess which statutory and constitutional arguments the facts support.
For companies handling recurring asbestos or chemical-exposure claims, a short intake procedure can make this review repeatable: identify the correct entity, collect the relevant corporate records, assign responsibility for the jurisdiction analysis, and coordinate the first response. The business benefit is an informed decision early enough to act on it, supported by records the company can use consistently across its litigation portfolio.