On appeal, the appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. 2019 IL App (1st) 180871. ¶ 3 We granted the City's petition for leave to appeal (Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2018)) and now reverse the judgment of the appellate court.

For courts allowing a claim for medical monitoring to proceed post Buckley , see Petito v. A.H. Robins Co. , 750 So. 2d 103, 104, 108 (Fla. App. 1999), review denied, 780 So. 2d 912 (2001), and review denied sub nom. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Petito , 780 So. 2d 916 (2001), Berry v. Chicago , 433 Ill.Dec. 921, 133 N.E.3d 1201, 1209 (Ill. App.), appeal allowed, 433 Ill.Dec. 446, 132 N.E.3d 284 (Ill. 2019), Exxon Mobil Corp . v. Albright , 433 Md. 303, 378–80, 71 A.3d 30, cert. denied, 571 U.S. 1045, 134 S. Ct. 648, 187 L. Ed. 2d 449 (2013), Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc ., 455 Mass. 215, 225–26, 914 N.E.2d 891 (2009), Meyer ex rel. Coplin v. Fluor Corp ., 220 S.W.3d 712, 717–18 (Mo. 2007), Sadler v. PacifiCare of Nevada , 130 Nev. 990, 998–99, 340 P.3d 1264 (2014), and Bower v. Westinghouse Electric Corp ., 206 W. Va. 133, 140, 522 S.E.2d 424 (1999). A challenging issue presented by the plaintiffs’ claims in this case is determining the nature of the harm, if any, caused by their exposure to asbestos.

Our review is de novo. Berry v. City of Chicago, 2019 IL App (1st) 180871, ¶ 24. ¶ 22 I ¶ 23 We begin with Cooper's argument that the court erred in concluding that Cooper failed to allege an agency relationship between the Club and Ridgeworth.