Title: Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

Docket No. 94144-Agenda 13-January 2003.
CHRISTOPHER K. GRIDLEY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Opinion filed November 17, 2005.
 
	CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:
	Plaintiff, Christopher Gridley, filed a class action complaint in the
circuit court of Madison County on behalf of himself and a proposed
nationwide class against defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (State Farm). Gridley's complaint alleged unjust
enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS
505/1 et seq. (West 2000)) in connection with State Farm's sale of
salvage vehicles.
	State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint based upon the
doctrine of forum non conveniens (134 Ill. 2d R. 187), arguing that
Louisiana and not Illinois was the most convenient forum.
Alternatively, State Farm moved to transfer the cause from Madison
County to McLean County, State Farm's principal place of business.
The circuit court denied State Farm's motions. State Farm appealed
the circuit court's order pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
306(a) (166 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)). The appellate court remanded the cause
for entry of a detailed discovery order that would produce information
relevant to the issues raised in the forum non conveniens motions. 329
Ill. App. 3d 422. This court allowed State Farm's petition for leave to
appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a). We also granted the Illinois Trial
Lawyers Association leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support
of plaintiff. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 345. We granted Allegiance Healthcare
Corporation, Allstate Insurance Company, Baxter Healthcare
Corporation, Caterpiller, Inc., Country Mutual Insurance Company,
Sears Roebuck and Company, and Walgreen Company leave to submit
an amicus curiae brief in support of defendant. We also granted leave
to submit amicus curiae briefs in support of defendant to the Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America, the Product Liability
Advisory Council, Inc., and the American Insurance Association. We
now reverse the judgments of the circuit and appellate courts and
remand the cause to the circuit court for entry of an order granting
State Farm's motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens.
BACKGROUND
	 Gridley, a resident of Louisiana, filed suit as representative of a
class of "all persons in the United States who purchased an
automobile which was previously declared a 'total loss' by State
Farm, and for which State Farm failed to obtain a salvage title."
Gridley alleged that State Farm had a practice of obtaining "clean"
titles on vehicles that it had previously declared "total losses" and that
it marketed those vehicles at automobile auctions with clean titles.
Gridley alleged that State Farm's practice violated the Consumer
Fraud Act because State Farm was required by state titling laws to
obtain "salvage" titles on the vehicles of Gridley and the other class
members but instead obtained clean titles and marketed the vehicles
at auction at higher prices. State Farm concealed from Gridley and the
other class members that it had previously declared the vehicles total
losses. State Farm violated state law by putting those vehicles back
into the chain of commerce with clean titles rather than salvage titles.
Gridley also alleged that State Farm was unjustly enriched by the
excess monies it received for the sale of clean titled vehicles which
should have been salvage titled vehicles.
	State Farm moved to dismiss the class action complaint or, in the
alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. State Farm argued that Illinois was not the most
convenient forum because Gridley, the only named plaintiff, was a
resident of Louisiana, the events giving rise to the complaint were
alleged to have occurred in Louisiana, and Gridley alleged a violation
of Louisiana's title law. In addition, State Farm argued that the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act could not apply to an act that took place in
another state. State Farm maintained that Louisiana was the better
venue for Gridley's complaint.
	In the alternative, State Farm asked the court to transfer the
cause to McLean County, where State Farm has its corporate offices.
State Farm noted that the McLean County courts were considerably
less congested than the Madison County courts. Further, because
Gridley was not a resident of Illinois or Madison County, and because
the incidents at issue took place entirely in Louisiana, Gridley's choice
of forum was not entitled to any significant deference. Assuming any
Illinois county was more convenient than a Louisiana court, State
Farm contended that McLean County was a more convenient forum
for the action than Madison County.
	The circuit court denied State Farm's motion in its entirety. The
circuit court held that Illinois had a significant interest in the litigation
because State Farm was headquartered here and because Gridley
sought recovery under Illinois' substantive law. The circuit court also
held that it was proper to consider the size and location of the putative
class in ruling on a forum non conveniens motion. The circuit court
concluded that because the putative class would likely include
residents of several states, an Illinois court would be as capable as a
Louisiana court of assigning subclasses for each state.
	The circuit court also held that State Farm had failed to satisfy its
burden of proof in support of its alternative request to transfer the
cause from Madison County to McLean County. The circuit court
found that its calendar was not congested, and further stated that
State Farm had failed to identify a single witness or document located
within McLean County that was important to the case. Consequently,
the circuit court held that State Farm failed to establish that the public
and private interest factors strongly favored transfer of the cause from
Madison County to McLean County.
	As noted, the appellate court remanded the cause to the circuit
court. The appellate court held that the trial court did not have
sufficient facts to make an informed decision on State Farm's forum
non conveniens motion. Citing this court's decision in First American
Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (2002), the appellate court held that
in interstate as well as intrastate forum non conveniens evaluations,
the balance of factors must strongly favor transfer of a case before a
plaintiff can be deprived of his chosen forum. 329 Ill. App. 3d at 428.
However, because the record in the circuit court lacked competent
information regarding the location of documents, witnesses or sources
of proof regarding State Farm's alleged misconduct, the appellate
court remanded the cause for further discovery on the forum non
conveniens issue and for reconsideration in light of the appellate
court's decision and this court's decision in Guerine.
ANALYSIS
	Before we can address whether the circuit court properly denied
State Farm's motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens, we
must first consider whether the appellate court properly remanded this
cause to the circuit court for further discovery on the forum non
conveniens issue. Both State Farm and Gridley agree that the
appellate court erred in remanding the cause for further discovery,
although the parties disagree concerning why the appellate court's
order was erroneous. State Farm maintains that the appellate court
placed undue reliance on the putative class allegations. State Farm
argues that the appellate court's order invites burdensome discovery
and reliance on speculative matters. Moreover, the appellate court's
order effectively frustrates the purpose of forum non conveniens. In
contrast, Gridley argues that the appellate court erred in remanding
the cause for further discovery because it is clear that Madison County
is the proper forum for this action.
	Upon review, we agree with State Farm that the appellate court
improperly focused on the putative class allegations in remanding the
cause for further discovery. In remanding the cause to the trial court
for further discovery, the appellate court stated:
			"In this case, the putative class has not been certified. The
record provides no competent evidence regarding the
number, identity, and location of potential class members.
When considering a forum non conveniens motion in a class
action, whether certified or uncertified, the court should
consider the relevant factors in light of the identity, number
and location of potential class members, rather than limit the
inquiry to the named class representatives. Similarly, the
location and availability of documentary and physical
evidence on a class-wide basis should be considered. The
reason the inquiry must extend beyond the named class
representative is that a significant portion of the proof at the
trial (witnesses, documents, and other tangible items) may
well be located in a place different from the representative's
place of residence. Moreover, if the class is certified,
members of the class may be widely disbursed throughout the
state or nation. Making a forum non conveniens decision
based solely upon the residence of the class representatives
may result in the case being heard in a decidedly inconvenient
forum for the rest of the class members." 329 Ill. App. 3d at
427.
	As State Farm has argued, the appellate court improperly focused
on the putative class members and improperly directed discovery into
"the identity, number and location of potential class members" for
purposes of State Farm's forum non conveniens motion. The appellate
court's order places too much emphasis on the claims of those who
have not yet been, and may not be, certified as a class. Indeed, at this
point, it is unlikely that a nationwide class will be certified in this case.
One of the allegations in Gridley's complaint is that State Farm's
nationwide practices concerning salvage vehicles violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act. This court, however, recently held that the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to fraudulent transactions
which take place outside the state of Illinois. Avery v. State Farm, 216 Ill. 2d 100, 185 (2005). In Avery, this court explained that a plaintiff
may pursue a private cause of action if "the circumstances that relate
to the disputed transaction occur primarily and substantially in
Illinois." Avery, 216 Ill. 2d  at 187.
	This court in Avery concluded that the overwhelming majority of
circumstances relating to the named out-of-state plaintiffs' claims
concerning automobile replacement parts occurred outside Illinois.
Avery, 216 Ill. 2d  at 187. For example, plaintiff Avery was a resident
of Louisiana, he garaged his car in Louisiana, and his accident
occurred in Louisiana. Avery, 216 Ill. 2d  at 187. Avery's estimate for
repairs to his car was written in Louisiana and the alleged
deception-the failure to disclose the inferiority of non-original-equipment-manufacturer parts-occurred in Louisiana. Avery's car was
repaired in Louisiana and his contact with defendant State Farm was
through a Louisiana agent, a Louisiana claims representative and a
Louisiana adjuster. Because the circumstances relating to the disputed
transactions occurred primarily and substantially in Louisiana, Avery
did not have a cognizable cause of action under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. Avery, 216 Ill 2d at 187.
	In this case, discovery for purposes of the forum non conveniens
motion revealed that State Farm handles compliance with salvage laws
on a state-by-state basis, rather than from State Farm's headquarters
in Bloomington, Illinois, given the variation in each state's salvage
laws. Like the plaintiff in Avery, Gridley is a resident of Louisiana.
Gridley purchased his car in Louisiana and obtained automobile
insurance in Louisiana. Gridley was involved in an accident in
Louisiana and took his car to a repair center in Louisiana. State
Farm's alleged deception-fraudulently obtaining a clean title rather
than a salvage title on the vehicle sold to Gridley-occurred in
Louisiana. In addition, the prior undisclosed damage to Gridley's
vehicle was the result of two previous accidents in Louisiana. As in
Avery, the majority of circumstances relating to the sale of the salvage
vehicle in this case occurred primarily and substantially in Louisiana,
so that Gridley does not have a cognizable cause of action under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. It follows that the failure of Gridley's
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim necessarily defeats his class action
claims based upon the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Avery, 216 Ill. 2d 
at 139 (a class action cannot be certified unless the named plaintiffs
have a cause of action). Gridley's only remaining claim, then, alleges
unjust enrichment. The likelihood that a nationwide class will be
certified in this case on the remaining unjust-enrichment claim is too
speculative to justify the imposition of extensive discovery concerning
putative class members.
	We also note that the appellate court's order is contrary to the
nature and purpose of a class action, which is intended to "allow a
representative party to pursue the claims of a large number of persons
with like claims" and which "does not contemplate or necessitate the
appearance of absent parties." Miner v. Gillette Co., 87 Ill. 2d 7, 14
(1981). Indeed, it is the named plaintiffs in a class action that have the
burden of establishing the statutory prerequisites to bringing a class
action, and those prerequisites must be met before the court can
sanction the maintenance of the suit as a class action. Wheatley v.
Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill. 2d 481, 486 (1984). Thus, a class action suit is "predicated on the
inability of the court to entertain the actual appearance of all members
of the class as well as the impracticality of having each member
prosecute his individual claim." Miner, 87 Ill. 2d  at 14. Given that the
nature of a class action is to allow a named representative to act on
behalf of any absent class members, it would be antithetical to
nonetheless require a court to conduct detailed discovery into the
claims of absent class members prior to deciding a forum non
conveniens motion, particularly where the class has not been certified.
	Further, as the United States Supreme Court has recognized,
requiring extensive investigation prior to deciding a forum non
conveniens motion would defeat the purpose of the forum non
conveniens motion. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 258-59, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 437, 102 S. Ct. 252, 267 (1981). In Piper, the
Court stated:
		"[The court of appeals] suggested that defendants seeking
forum non conveniens dismissal must submit affidavits
identifying the witnesses they would call and the testimony
these witnesses would provide if the trial were held in the
alternative forum. Such detail is not necessary. [Defendants]
have moved for dismissal precisely because many crucial
witnesses are located beyond the reach of compulsory
process, and thus are difficult to identify or interview.
Requiring extensive investigation would defeat the purpose
of [defendants'] motion. Of course, defendants must provide
enough information to enable the District Court to balance
the parties' interests. Our examination of the record
convinces us that sufficient information was provided here."
Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S.  at 258-59, 70 L. Ed. 2d  at 437,
102 S. Ct.  at 267.
Likewise, in this case, our examination of the record convinces us that
sufficient information was provided here for the circuit court to decide
State Farm's forum non conveniens motion without conducting any
additional discovery.
	In holding that the appellate court erred in remanding this cause
for further discovery concerning the putative class, we emphasize that
we do not hold that a court can never consider the identity, number
and location of potential class members in deciding a forum non
conveniens motion. Every request for transfer based upon forum non
conveniens must be decided pursuant to an "individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Van Dusen v.
Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945, 953, 84 S. Ct. 805,
812 (1964). Thus, in a derivative action "what forum is appropriate
for such a task may require consideration of its relation to the whole
group of members and stockholders whom plaintiff volunteers to
represent as well as to the nominal plaintiff himself." Koster v.
American Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 526, 91 L. Ed. 1067, 1075, 67 S. Ct. 828, 832 (1947). This is because a
plaintiff in a derivative action might be "a mere phantom plaintiff with
interest enough to enable him to institute the action and little more."
Koster, 330 U.S.  at 525, 91 L. Ed.  at 1074, 67 S. Ct.  at 832. In this
case, however, where it is uncertain whether the putative class will in
fact be certified, we find that the appellate court erred in remanding
the cause for further discovery concerning the putative class.
	Having found that the appellate court erred in remanding this
cause for further discovery on the issue of forum non conveniens, we
must next determine whether the trial court properly denied State
Farm's motion to dismiss or transfer based upon forum non
conveniens. Because Gridley cannot state a claim under the Consumer
Fraud Act, our review of the trial court's forum non conveniens ruling
is limited to the remaining unjust-enrichment claim. A trial court's
decision on a forum non conveniens motion will be reversed only if it
can be shown that the trial court abused its discretion in balancing the
various factors at issue. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 176-77 (2003). An abuse of discretion will be found where no
reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d  at 177.
	The doctrine of forum non conveniens is founded in
considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective
judicial administration. Adkins v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R.
Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973). Forum non conveniens allows a court
to decline jurisdiction of a case even though it may have proper
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved if it
appears that another forum can better serve the convenience of the
parties and the ends of justice. Adkins, 54 Ill. 2d  at 514. Indeed, the
doctrine of forum non conveniens assumes that there is more than one
forum with the power to hear the case. Espinosa v. Norfolk &
Western Ry. Co., 86 Ill. 2d 111, 117 (1981).
	Forum non conveniens is a flexible doctrine requiring evaluation
of the total circumstances rather than consideration of any single
factor. Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 336-37 (1994). In
determining whether forum non conveniens applies, the trial court
must balance private interest factors affecting the convenience of the
litigants and public interest factors affecting the administration of the
courts. Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 223-24
(1987). The private interest factors include:
			"(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease of
access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real
evidence; and (3) all other practical problems that make trial
of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive-for example, the
availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of
unwilling witnesses, the cost to obtain attendance of willing
witnesses, and the ability to view the premises (if
appropriate)." Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 516.
 The public interest factors include:
		"(1) the interest in deciding localized controversies locally;
(2) the unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and the
burden of jury duty on residents of a county with little
connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative
difficulties presented by adding further litigation to court
dockets in already congested fora." Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at
516-17.
The trial court does not weigh the private interest factors against the
public interest factors. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 518. Rather, the trial
court must evaluate the total circumstances of the case in determining
whether the balance of factors strongly favors transfer. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 518.
	A further consideration is deference to a plaintiff's choice of
forum. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d  at 173. A plaintiff's right to select the
forum is substantial and unless the factors weigh strongly in favor of
transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d  at 173. Thus, when a plaintiff chooses his home
forum or the site of the accident or injury, it is reasonable to assume
that the choice of forum is convenient. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d  at 173.
However, when the plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum and when
the action giving rise to the litigation did not occur in the chosen
forum, the plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference.
Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d  at 173-74.
	Based upon the foregoing factors, we find that the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying State Farm's motion to dismiss based
upon forum non conveniens. Balancing all the relevant factors, it is
clear that those factors strongly favor dismissal in favor of a Louisiana
forum with regard to the remaining unjust-enrichment claim. The
pertinent facts of this case are as follows. The sole named plaintiff in
this class action, Christopher Gridley, is a resident of Louisiana.
Gridley purchased a 1998 Volvo S70 from a Louisiana auto auction
dealer on November 18, 1999. The Volvo had a "clean title." The
Volvo had originally been owned by John Fage, another Louisiana
resident, who insured the Volvo through a State Farm office in
Louisiana. While owned by Fage, the Volvo was involved in an
automobile accident in Louisiana on April 15, 1999, and was taken to
Duplessis Cadillac/Volvo, a repair facility in Louisiana. After the
Volvo was repaired by Duplessis, Fage continued to have problems
with the vehicle. Fage then took the Volvo to Medines Collision
Center in Louisiana. Medines discovered additional damage to the
vehicle as a result of the April 1999 accident. State Farm then handled
the vehicle as a "total loss" and paid Fage $28,841.87 for the vehicle.
Fage executed a special and limited power of attorney in Louisiana to
allow State Farm to secure and transfer title to the Volvo.
	Gridley alleged that rather than apply for a "salvage" title, as it
was required to do pursuant to Louisiana statute (La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§32:702(10) (West 2000)) and its agreement with Fage, State Farm
fraudulently obtained a clean title on the vehicle. Thereafter, Gridley
purchased the Volvo from the auto auction dealer. After Gridley
purchased the Volvo, he obtained insurance on the vehicle through a
State Farm office in Louisiana. The Volvo later was involved in
another accident in Louisiana. When Gridley took the Volvo to
Medines Collision Center in Louisiana, he learned that the Volvo had
unrepaired damage from a prior accident and that State Farm
previously had handled the Volvo as a total loss.
	In denying State Farm's interstate forum non conveniens motion,
the trial court found it significant that State Farm is headquartered in
Illinois. With regard to the fact that State Farm is headquartered in
Illinois, however, this court previously has held that the fact that a
corporation does business within a county in Illinois does not affect
the forum non conveniens analysis. See Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306 (1991). In Vinson, this court considered whether the circuit court
had abused its discretion in denying defendant Allstate's motion to
dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 308. At issue in Vinson was a homeowner's insurance policy
issued by Allstate insuring the plaintiffs' home in Missouri. Vinson,
144 Ill. 2d  at 309. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss,
noting, inter alia, that Allstate was a corporate resident of the State
of Illinois and did business within the county where the action had
been filed. Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 309. This court reversed, stating:
			"[W]e find that Allstate is an Illinois corporation that does
business within Alexander County. Because it is assumed on
a forum non conveniens motion that the court has jurisdiction
over the defendant, the fact that Allstate conducts business
within the county is not the only factor the court should
consider in its analysis. 'A forum non conveniens motion ***
causes a court to look beyond the criterion of venue when it
considers the relative convenience of a forum.' (Emphasis
added.) (Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 226.) '[M]erely conducting
business in [Alexander] County does not affect the forum non
conveniens issue ***.' Boner, 142 Ill. 2d  at 540." Vinson,
144 Ill. 2d  at 311.
	Similarly, in Jones v. Searle Laboratories, 93 Ill. 2d 366 (1982),
this court reversed the appellate court's finding that there was a
relevant connection between the litigation and the selected forum in
Illinois. The defendant had filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that Illinois was a forum non conveniens and that the United Kingdom
was the proper forum for the action. Jones, 93 Ill. 2d  at 371. This
court observed that in finding a relevant connection between Illinois
and the action, "the appellate court primarily relied on the fact that
defendant is a resident in Illinois having its principal place of business
here, and that 'the alleged commission of the tort' [failing to provide
adequate warnings concerning the side effects of contraceptives]
occurred in this State." Jones, 93 Ill. 2d  at 376. This court stated that
merely because Illinois has a relationship to the parties or the litigation
does not necessarily mean that Illinois is the appropriate forum in
every case. Jones, 93 Ill. 2d  at 377. Rather, the place of defendant's
residence may properly be considered along with other connections
which exist between the litigation and the chosen forum. Jones, 93 Ill. 2d  at 377.
	This court recently reaffirmed that the fact that a defendant
conducts business in the plaintiff's chosen forum is not dispositive of
the forum non conveniens issue. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d  at 182. The fact
that State Farm's principal place of business is in Illinois, then, is just
one factor to be considered in determining whether Illinois or
Louisiana is the more appropriate forum. We also accord less
deference to Gridley's choice of forum because he is foreign to
Madison County and the action giving rise to the litigation occurred
in Louisiana, not Madison County.
	A review of the private interest factors establishes that those
factors weigh in favor of Louisiana over Illinois. As noted, the private
interest factors include the convenience of the parties, the relative ease
of access to sources of testimonial, documentary and real evidence,
and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious and inexpensive, such as the availability of compulsory
process to secure the attendance of willing witnesses. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 516. Here, the sole named plaintiff is a resident of Louisiana.
Gridley's claim concerns events that took place exclusively in
Louisiana. The allegations against State Farm concern a violation of
a Louisiana statute which provides that a salvage title is required if
damages to a vehicle exceed 75% of its value. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§32:702(11) (West 2000). Most of the witnesses relating to Gridley's
claim are located in Louisiana. These witnesses include the prior
owner of the Volvo, employees of Duplessis Cadillac/Volvo,
employees of Medines Collision Center, employees of the auto auction
dealer where Gridley bought the Volvo, employees of the auto
insurance agencies that insured the Volvo for both Fage and Gridley,
and employees of State Farm involved in handling both claims for the
Volvo. Illinois courts do not have subpoena power in Louisiana, so
other than its employees in Louisiana, State Farm would not be able
to compel the attendance of the Louisiana witnesses in Illinois. In
contrast, the named witnesses residing in Illinois appear to be
employees of State Farm, so it is unlikely that Gridley would have the
same difficulty securing the attendance of those witnesses in
Louisiana.
	In addition, as noted, discovery for purposes of the forum non
conveniens motion revealed that State Farm handles compliance with
salvage laws on a state-by-state basis, rather than from State Farm's
headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois, given the variations in each
state's salvage laws. Accordingly, for purposes of Gridley's
complaint, any documentary and physical evidence relating to
Gridley's claim that State Farm failed to comply with Louisiana
statute (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §32:702 (West 2000)) and that State
Farm was unjustly enriched when it sold salvage vehicles with clean
titles likely will be located in Louisiana.
	Likewise, the public interest factors-the interest in deciding
controversies locally; the unfairness of imposing trial expenses and the
burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that have little connection
to the litigation; and the administrative difficulties presented by adding
litigation to already congested court dockets-favor Louisiana.
Louisiana law would govern Gridley's claim. Louisiana has an interest
in applying its law in its own courts. "The need to apply the law of a
foreign jurisdiction has been considered a significant factor favoring
dismissal of a suit on grounds of forum non conveniens." Moore v.
Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 99 Ill. 2d 73, 80
(1983). Louisiana has an interest in deciding this matter locally. In
contrast, Illinois courts have an interest in not being burdened with
applying foreign law in the absence of strong policy reasons and a
strong connection to the case. Here, as noted, Gridley cannot proceed
with his Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim. Gridley's remaining claim,
that State Farm was unjustly enriched by selling vehicles with clean
titles that should have had a salvage title, involves events that
occurred in Louisiana and have no connection with Illinois. In the
absence of a valid Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim, we see no
strong policy reason or other strong Illinois connection to this case
that would weigh in favor of Illinois.
	In addition, the residents of Illinois should not be burdened with
jury duty given the fact that the action did not arise in, and has no
relation to, Illinois. Conversely, considering Louisiana's interest in this
case, it would not be unfair to burden the residents of Louisiana with
jury duty.
	With regard to court congestion, the parties have not provided
this court with a comparison of the congestion of the docket in
Louisiana and the docket in Madison County. Therefore, we do not
take that factor into account in our analysis.
	Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the weight of the private
interest factors and of the public interest factors greatly favor
Louisiana over Illinois. Accordingly, we find that the balance of
factors strongly favors dismissal of this case in favor of a Louisiana
forum and that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying State
Farm's motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens. We
therefore remand this cause to the circuit court with directions to
enter an order granting State Farm's motion to dismiss. We further
note that in light of our finding that the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying State Farm's motion to dismiss, we need not
address State Farm's alternative claim that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying State Farm's motion to transfer this cause to
McLean County.
	For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the circuit court of
Madison County and the appellate court are reversed, and the cause
is remanded to the circuit court of Madison County with directions to
dismiss the cause of action.
Appellate court judgment reversed;
circuit court judgment reversed;
cause remanded with directions.
	JUSTICE KARMEIER took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.