Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co.
Facts
Twelve female plaintiffs sued Searle for injuries allegedly caused by the Cu-7 intrauterine contraceptive, and eight male plaintiffs asserted related loss of consortium claims. Plaintiffs had previously filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which dismissed their claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. They then refiled in the circuit court of Cook County within a year of that dismissal. Plaintiffs conceded their claims were time-barred under the laws of their home jurisdictions but argued the claims arose in Illinois and were saved by the Illinois savings statute.
Issue
Did plaintiffs' claims arise in Illinois so that the Illinois borrowing statute would not bar them, or did they arise outside Illinois, requiring application of the limitations periods of the states where the claims arose? Relatedly, was Searle an Illinois resident for purposes of avoiding the borrowing statute because its principal place of business was in Illinois?
Rule
Under Illinois law, where a cause of action arose is determined by the most significant relationship test. The law of the place of injury is presumed to apply unless another jurisdiction has a greater relationship to the facts, and courts consider: (1) the place of injury; (2) the place of the conduct; (3) the domicile, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; and (4) the place where the parties' relationship is centered. For purposes of the Illinois borrowing statute, a corporation is a resident only of the state in which it is incorporated.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Under the Illinois approach described by the court, where did Elena's claim most likely arise for purposes of the borrowing statute?