McKinney v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
Opinion Civil Probate and Estate Law
Holdings
- Fifth District holds Illinois law, not Alabama law, governs distribution of Wrongful Death Act settlement proceeds despite heirs' Alabama domicile
- Court applies Restatement two-step choice-of-law analysis, finding the state whose law produced the recovery has greater interest in equitable distribution
- Useful for wrongful death, mass tort/asbestos, and probate litigators handling multistate settlement distribution and heir standing disputes
Summary
This appeal arose from an asbestos-exposure wrongful death and survival action settled with multiple defendants, after which the decedent's heirs disputed how the settlement proceeds should be allocated. The circuit court applied Illinois law rather than Alabama law to distribution of the Wrongful Death Act proceeds, denied the objecting heir's (Kamm's) motion to reconsider, denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint, and ultimately awarded 100% of the post-death proceeds to the personal representative (McKinney) and none to Kamm.
On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed across the board. Applying Illinois choice-of-law rules and the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (sections 6, 145, 146, and 175), the court conducted the standard two-step analysis: identifying the presumptive place of injury, then testing that presumption against broader policy factors. Because the complaint alleged asbestos exposure occurring in or through Illinois during a period when the decedent did not live in Alabama, and no Alabama exposure was ever pled, the court found Illinois had the more significant relationship, particularly since Illinois's compensatory, dependency-based wrongful death distribution scheme better matched the claims actually litigated and settled, unlike Alabama's non-compensatory intestacy-based scheme. The court relied heavily on In re Estate of Barnes, reasoning that the state whose substantive law produced the recovery has the greater interest in its equitable distribution. The reconsideration motion failed on similar grounds, and Kamm's motion to amend was properly denied because, as an heir rather than the estate's administrator, she lacked standing to control the wrongful death litigation.
The decision offers practical guidance for attorneys handling multistate wrongful death settlements, particularly regarding choice-of-law arguments for distribution issues distinct from liability, and confirms that only the personal representative—not individual heirs—controls wrongful death pleadings.
In short
Illinois law governs distribution of Wrongful Death Act settlement proceeds where Illinois has the most significant relationship to the distribution issue under Restatement sections 6, 145, 146, and 175, even though heirs reside in another state.
The state whose substantive law produced the wrongful death recovery has the greater interest in governing the equitable distribution of that recovery, following In re Estate of Barnes.
A choice-of-law argument under Restatement section 175 raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider is untimely, though the court may still address its merits.
An heir who is not the estate's personal representative lacks standing to control wrongful death litigation or to seek leave to amend the operative complaint.
This summary was drafted by AI and verified against the slip opinion. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — always read the original before relying on it.