It’s Personal: No Causal Link, No Claim?

13 August 2021 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Authors: Tony Tootell Paul R. Piaskoski

For any company facing a product liability lawsuit, it is critical at the outset to assess whether the forum court actually has the power to render a judgment against the defendant company (i.e., personal jurisdiction). A court with general jurisdiction over a defendant can hear any and all claims against that defendant. Absent unusual circumstances, general jurisdiction only applies in those states where a company is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Assessing whether a court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a trickier exercise. Exercising specific personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant “purposely availed” itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state and that plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts.” It is this latter requirement of relatedness that the U.S. Supreme Court is attempting to clarify with its recent decision in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court.

This consolidated case stems from two separate accidents involving Ford vehicles in different states: Montana and Minnesota. Plaintiffs each sued Ford in their respective home states, bringing a number of claims, including products liability, design defect, and negligence.  Ford moved to dismiss the two suits for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that because the vehicles involved were not manufactured, designed, or sold in the forum states, Ford was not subject to personal jurisdiction in either state. Both the Montana and the Minnesota Supreme Courts (affirming lower court decisions) rejected Ford's argument, noting that Ford’s ongoing activities in the forum states encourage residents to drive Ford vehicles, and when that driving results in an in-state injury, the ensuing claims have enough of a tie to Ford’s activities to support specific jurisdiction.

On March 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court also rejected Ford’s argument, holding that the connection between the plaintiffs’ claims and Ford's extensive activities in Montana and Minnesota was “close enough” to support specific jurisdiction under due process principles, even though the particular vehicles involved were not manufactured or originally sold in those states. In reaching that decision, the Court pointed out that the plaintiffs are residents of the forum states, used the allegedly defective products in the forum states, and suffered injuries when those products allegedly malfunctioned in the forum states. The Court reasoned that “each of the plaintiffs brought suit in the most natural State—based on an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that t[ook] place’ there.”

Citing its prior decisions, the Court explained that when a company deliberately extends its business into the forum state, it has notice and may reasonably anticipate that it will be hauled into court based on its products causing injury there. The Court further rejected any framing of the specific jurisdiction inquiry as always requiring proof of causal link between the defendant’s contacts and the plaintiff’s claims. The Court was careful to point out, however, “[t]hat does not mean anything goes,” adding that “the phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates real limits, as it must to adequately protect defendants foreign to a forum.” The Court further limited its holding by specifying “we do not here consider internet transactions, which may raise doctrinal questions of their own.”

Personal jurisdiction has become a hot topic of late, with the Court by and large restricting its exercise over nonresident corporate defendants.  We previously reviewed the Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence and noted that specific jurisdiction requires a direct connection between the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant’s conduct, and the forum.  Though it remains to be seen how narrowly lower courts will interpret the holding in Ford Motor Company, the latest addition to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on personal jurisdiction is sure to have a significant impact on product liability actions. Under Ford Motor Company, a major manufacturer’s contacts with a forum state need not be the direct cause of a plaintiff’s injuries for specific jurisdiction to be proper. As a result, companies may be sued nationwide, as opposed to only in states where their products are designed, manufactured, and sold.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights