Products Liability Law Reporter

An Illinois appellate court held that an injured e-cigarette user failed to establish a trial court’s specific jurisdiction over a lithium-ion cell manufacturer.

Steven Wood purchased an e-cigarette from Tribble Vapors, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company whose principal place of business is in Springfield, the state’s capital. The e-cigarette, which purportedly contained an 18650 lithium-ion cell, exploded in Wood’s pocket, causing him to suffer third-degree burns to his right leg and minor burns to his right hand. Wood sued Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a South Korean corporation that manufactures and sells rechargeable 18650 lithium-ion battery cells to other manufacturers in bulk, alleging claims for strict liability and negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts. The defendant attached a declaration by Young Chan Han, a principal engineer employed by Samsung for over 15 years. Han asserted that Samsung SDI had no employees, officers, business agents, or representatives in the state of Illinois, was not licensed or registered to do business there, had never maintained a bank account in Illinois, and never incurred a tax obligation in the state. The trial court denied the motion.

Reversing, the intermediate appellate court considered the plaintiff’s argument that personal jurisdiction is warranted here based on Samsung’s purposeful, continuous, and systematic contacts with Illinois entities and the Illinois market, including Samsung SDI America, and because its products are sold throughout Illinois. The court noted that the three steps of the specific jurisdiction analysis are a consideration of purposeful availment, relatedness, and reasonableness. Considering the issue of purposeful availment, while declining to analyze the other factors, the court found no evidence that Samsung itself had shipped battery cells of any kind into Illinois. Citing case law, the court noted that the mere unilateral actions by those claiming a relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with a forum state.

Applying these principles here, the court found that Samsung did not do business in Illinois and sold its 18650 cells only to sophisticated business entitles that install the cells in battery packs and Samsung-authorized devices for retail purposes. The plaintiff failed to offer any evidence satisfying the essential requirement that Samsung itself had taken some act to benefit from Illinois’s system of law, infrastructure, or business activities, the court said. It reiterated that a defendant’s relationship with a third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court remanded with directions to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against Samsung for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Citation: Wood v. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., 2024 WL 2828238 (Ill. App. Ct. June 4, 2024).

Comment: See also Clarke Mosquito Control Prods., Inc. v. Lee Container Iowa, LLC, 2024 WL 3102242 (Ill. App. Ct. June 24, 2024). There, Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc., sued Lee Container Iowa, LLC, to recover economic damages resulting from its use of Lee Container’s allegedly defective fluorinated high density polyethylene containers to store and ship its liquid mosquito control products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s containers had a propensity to leach a harmful pollutant into the plaintiff’s products, and that this resulted in a voluntary recall. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Illinois had specific jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant, which sold the allegedly defective containers directly to an Illinois plaintiff and maintained the parties’ business relationship through yearly visits to the state.