(Legal Newsline) — An Illinois appeals court has agreed a Florida woman isn’t entitled to cut of the proceeds resulting from a settlement paid to her Alabaman father’s estate from an asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit.
The underlying lawsuit began in January 2023 when William Steeves, through the firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy, filed a Madison County lawsuit against multiple corporate defendants regarding a mesothelioma diagnosis, which he attributed to asbestos exposure during an engineering career in Florida that lasted from 1959 to 1981.
Steeves moved to Alabama in 1982. According to court records, Steeves also claimed he was exposed to asbestos outside of work from 1957 to 1977.
Steeves died in May 2023, leaving his entire estate to one daughter, Amy McKinney, who lived within walking distance of Steeves’ home in Alabama. He left nothing to his other daughter, Kelli Kamm, of Florida.
McKinney amended her late father’s complaint and ultimately settled the allegations under the Illinois Survival and Wrongful Death acts.
In 2024, Kamm argued Alabama law dictated she was entitled to half the Wrongful Death Act proceeds, a sum of nearly $216,000. But she acknowledged Illinois law calls for distributing funds on a “percentage of dependency” basis, which would give most of the money to McKinney. Kamm didn’t seek any money under the Survival Act, which applied to “pre-death” allegations, and McKinney supplied an affidavit stating her father and sister had no contact for 15 years before Steeves died and were estranged long before ceasing communication.
Madison County Circuit Court Judge Andrew Carruthers issued an order in December 2024 rejecting Kamm’s arguments for disbursal under Alabama law, finding that Illinois law should control the claims, even though neither Steves nor his daughters ever lived in Illinois.
Kamm then tried to amend McKinney’s complaint to include allegations that would bolster her Alabama claims; McKinney and Simmons Hanly Conroy opposed those efforts along with her attempts to get Carruthers to reconsider his ruling.
At the hearing for the motion to reconsider, Kamm argued her father’s death deprived her of the ability to reconcile their relationship and requested a “small percentage” of the $431,646 Wrongful Death settlement. Carruthers denied that motion in February 2025, prompting Kamm to take the issue to the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court.
Justice Judy Lynn Cates wrote the panel’s opinion, filed Aug. 11; Justices Michael McHaney and Amy Sholar concurred.
“We note that the record reveals there were some settlement discussions prior to the entry of the February” order, Cates wrote, and in context of the order indicated Kamm agreed to proceed with Illinois law “with regard to the percentages allocated to the next of kin pursuant to the Wrongful Death Act.”
But her appellate argument was that Judge Carruthers erred by applying Illinois law to the distribution method. The panel disagreed.
“The question raised was whether the injury was determined to be the place of death, which was Alabama, or the alleged place of exposure, a part of which occurred in Illinois,” Cates wrote. “The presumptive rule defining place of injury is more complex in this case than other tort claims because the alleged exposure occurred over a period of time, while Steeves was traveling across multiple states. During the alleged exposure period between 1959 to 1981, Steeves did not live or work in Alabama. No claims were alleged under Alabama law by Steeves when he was living or included in the first amended complaint by McKinney, as the personal representative of Steeves’ estate.”
Although the panel said the place of legal injury is Illinois — although Steeves died in Alabama — it also needed to affirm Illinois “has the most significant relationship with respect to the particular issues, which is the distribution of the settlement proceeds that were realized as a result of the litigation pursued under the Wrongful Death Act.”
Those proceeds, Cates continued, have been held in Illinois, which “is a public policy driven state with a distribution methodology aimed at providing for survivors of the decedent who actually suffered the greatest loss,” whereas Alabama “mechanically applies the distribution statute without regard to the individuals who were dependent upon the decedent. Thus, for proceeds recovered under the Wrongful Death Act, the public policy favors distribution under Illinois law.”
The panel reasoned McKinney might not have settled absent the expectation of the distribution method of the law under which she sued. It further said “it seems disingenuous for Kamm to acquiesce in allowing Illinois to serve as the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties” as relates to the Survival Act only to “then raise the choice-of-law dispute, not for the applicability of the Wrongful Death Act litigation, but only for the narrow purpose of distributing the proceeds. In light of these facts, Illinois has the most significant relationship for choice-of-law purposes.”
Cates also explained Judge Carruthers didn’t abuse discretion in denying Kamm’s motion to amend McKinney’s complaint and refused her request to strike from the record more than 30 pages from her filings.
“Kamm’s counsel filed an appendix with appellant’s brief that contained information not before the trial court, including the unredacted financial accounting of the settlement monies held by Simmons,” Cates wrote. “Submitting documents contrary to the rules as part of the briefing process on appeal is a waste of this court’s judicial resources and these extrajudicial documents will not be considered. This practice is looked upon with disfavor.”
Kamm is represented by Norsigian Law, of O’Fallon, and Mathis, Marifian & Richter, of Belleville.
The defendants are represented by Dripps & Blotevogel, of Maryville, and Michelle L. Rousseau, of Belleville.
