Pennsylvania's Consent to Jurisdiction By Registering To Do Business In Pennsylvania Valid, But Subject To Continuing Attacks

Tort Talkers may recall the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the validity of Pennsylvania's consent by registration statute.  Under that statute, corporations and companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania thereby consent to subject themselves to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania state courts for lawsuits, even if the underlying accident occurred elsewhere.

A majority of U.S. justices upheld the validity of the statute, determining that it does not violate due process violations, and remanded the case back to Pennsylvania.  Yet, commentators note that the language of a Concurring Opinion by Justice Alito may spur Defendants to continue to attack the statute.

Under a recent Order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court punted and remanded the issue all the way back down to the trial court for consideration, thereby rejecting the Defendants' attempt at a fast-tracked review by the Commonwealth's highest Court on continuing challenges to the question of whether or not Pennsylvania's consent by registration statute violates the U.S. Constitution.

Anyone wishing to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Order in this regard may click this LINK.

Presently, the statute providing that a corporation's registration to do business in Pennsylvania thereby subjects that corporation to Pennsylvania state court jurisdiction over personal injury lawsuits remains valid but subject to continuing attacks.

Source of image:  Photo by Jackie Hope on www.unsplash.com.

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Upholds Pennsylvania Law Conferring Jurisdiction on Corporations Who Register To Do Business in PA

In the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co, ___ U.S.___ (June 27, 2023) in a 4-1-4 plurality decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Pennsylvania law allowing state courts to hear lawsuits against out-of-state companies who had registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania, even when the alleged injury occurred outside of the Pennsylvania.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Sufficient Quantity and Quality of Contacts Found to Render Philadelphia County as a Proper Venue

In the case of Troseth v. Carson Helicopters Holding Co. Inc., March Term, No. 1222 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 24, 2022 Kennedy, J.), the court ruled that venue was proper over all of the Defendants in this matter because one of the Defendants had sufficient quantity and quality of contacts so as to qualify Philadelphia County as a proper venue. The court additionally held that venue was proper for the remaining Defendant under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c)(1), which states that, where venue is proper for one (1) Defendant, it is proper for all Defendants.

In this matter, the Plaintiff was injured in a helicopter crash.

The Defendants asserted that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the suit under Pa. R.C.P. 2179, which governs proper venue for corporate Defendants. The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections. The trial court overruled the Preliminary Objections and the Defendants then moved for an appellate certification of the Orders so that they could immediately appeal the ruling to the extent that it involved a substantial venue issue.

As to the quality of contacts, the court noted that the corporate Defendant’s acts within the county must be those acts directly furthering or essential to their corporate objective. In this regard, the court held that the helicopter manufacturer was in the business of manufacturing, refurbishing, and selling helicopters, and had contracts with manufacturers in northern Philadelphia. The court found that these contacts were of sufficient quality relative to the venue question.

With regard to the quantity test, the court noted that a Defendant’s acts must be sufficiently continuous so as to be considered habitual for venue purposes. The court additionally referenced precedent finding that venue was properly established where just 1-2% of a company’s gross sales were located within the venue jurisdiction.

After reviewing the record before it, the court noted that the helicopter manufacturer had specifically contracted with a Philadelphia manufacturer to produce the interior materials and items for helicopters. The court found that this evidence satisfied the quantity prong of the test.

The court also noted that the Defendant helicopter manufacturer also had other contacts in Philadelphia County and used Philadelphia airports to transport their helicopters.

Given that the court found that venue was proper as to the helicopter corporate Defendant, the court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1006, venue was also proper for the other Defendants.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 22, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Olly Peters on www.unsplash.com.

Validity of Part of Pennsylvania's Long-Arm Statute Going Up to the U.S. Supreme Court for Consideration

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to consider arguments in the Pennsylvania case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway about the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s law requiring out-of-state companies and corporations to submit to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania as a requirement when registering to do business in the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that this law was unconstitutional late last year, finding that it violated due process principles.

The Tort Talk post on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in the Mallory case, along with a Link to that decision, can be viewed HERE.

Source:  Article - "SCOTUS Takes Up Appeal Over Pa.'s Jurisdiction By Business Registration Law" by Max Mitchell of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 25, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Brad Weaver on www.unsplash.com.

Court Finds No Personal Jurisidiction Over Cruise Line Where Plaintiff's Injury Did Not Occur In Pennsylvania

In the case Knox v. Seven Seas Cruises, No. 525, August Term 2020 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 21, 2021 New, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to confirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

According to the Opinion, the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the cruise line grew out of a dispute over the Plaintiff’s request for a cash refund. 

The Plaintiffs filed suit in Philadelphia County on the claims presented and asserted that the Pennsylvania trial court had specific jurisdiction because the financial harm that the Plaintiff allegedly suffered related to the cruise line’s contacts in Pennsylvania, specifically, the company’s solicitation of the Plaintiffs’ business.

The cruise line filed Preliminary Objections raising the issue of personal jurisdiction.

The court ruled that, while the Defendant solicited business from Pennsylvania, including the Plaintiffs’ business, the court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over this foreign corporation because the allegedly injury-causing incident involving the Defendant did not occur in this State of Pennsylvania. The court otherwise found that the combination of the Plaintiffs’ Pennsylvania residency and the Defendant’s solicitation of business in Pennsylvania was not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

As such, the trial court requested that the Superior Court affirm its decision on appeal.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 21, 2021).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Limits the Reach of the Jurisdictional Long-Arm Statute Over Foreign Corporations

Pennsylvania State Capitol Building
Home of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 3 EAP 2021 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2021) (Maj. Op. by Baer, C.J.)(Concurring Op. by Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court precluded the exercise of general personal jurisdiction by a Pennsylvania court over a party solely on the basis of the fact that a foreign corporation had registered to do business in Pennsylvania. As such, that aspect of the Pennsylvania long-arm statute has been declared unconstitutional in this Mallory decision.

In this matter, a Virginia resident filed an action in Pennsylvania against a Virginia corporation, under an allegation of injuries sustained in Virginia and Ohio.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Pennsylvania courts have general personal jurisdiction over the case based exclusively upon the fact that the foreign corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania. 

In this regard, the Plaintiff had relied upon 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5301(a)(2)(i). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the trial court decision that the Pennsylvania statute, affording Pennsylvania court general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that registers to do business in Pennsylvania regardless for the lack of continuous and symptomatic contacts within the state by that corporation, fails to comport with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In other words, the Court held that Pennsylvania's "statutory scheme is unconstitutional to the extent that it affords Pennsylvania courts general jurisdiction over foreign corporations that are not at home in the Commonwealth."  See Op. at p. 44.    

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Mundy can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Andre Frueh on www.unsplash.com.

Court Addresses Service of Process on Out-of-State Defendant and Non Pros Issues

In the case of Auto Club Ins. Ass’n v. Enter. Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-422 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 5, 2021 Nealon, J.), the court held that a Defendant was properly served with a Writ of Summons filed within the statutory time limits. The court also ruled that the Defendant did not suffer prejudice such that the Complaint should not be dismissed due to an alleged untimely prosecution of the claim.

In this matter, the Defendant was headquartered in another state. 

The court determined that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure required that this Defendant be served within ninety (90) days of the Writ of Summons by way of certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Judge Nealon found that the record before him confirmed that this Defendant was timely and properly served. As such, the first Preliminary Objection regarding service of process issues was overruled.

With regard to the Defendant’s argument that the matter was not timely prosecuted due to the fact that the sixty (60) months had passed between the issuance of the Writ of Summons and the filing of the Complaint, the court stated that this issue was not properly raised as a Preliminary Objection but should have been raised via Motion for Judgment Non Pros. 

However, even applying the rules pertaining to the determination of a Motion for Judgment of Non Pros, Judge Nealon found that the Defendant failed to identify any actual prejudice it had suffered due to the passage of time. Given that there was no prejudice found, the Defendant’s objection in this regard was also overruled.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 23, 2021).

Source of image: Photo by Enrique Zafra from www.pexels.com.

Jurisdiction Challenge Rejected Given that Defendant Company Was Registered in Pennsylvania as of the Date the Claim Was Filed

In the exposure to asbestos case of Data v. AO Smith Corp., No. 2:19-CV-00879-CRE (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2021 Eddy, Mag. J.), a federal magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation it which it was recommended that the District Court deny a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the case based upon jurisdictional arguments.

The court ruled that Pennsylvania’s statute imposes general jurisdiction on all companies registering to do business in Pennsylvania is constitutional.

Notably, the court ruled that jurisdiction exists over a Defendant even for causes of action that arose prior to Defendant's registration in Pennsylvania as a foreign company so long as the corporation is so registered as of the time the lawsuit is filed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Registration to do Business in Pennsylvania Amounts to Valid Consent to General Jurisdiction

The case of Weigold v. Ford Motor Company, No. 20-2141 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2020 Savage, J.) represents another decision in which a court held that a foreign company's registration to do business in Pennsylvania also represents a valid consent to general personal jurisdiction over that company in lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania. 

Based upon this rule of law, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Important Issue of Jurisdiction Found To Have Been Waived

In the case of Murray v. American LaFrance, 2020 Pa. Super. 149 (Pa. Super. June 25, 2020) (en banc) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed whether Pennsylvania has general personal jurisdiction over a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Illinois exclusively due to the Defendant’s 1969 registration with the Pennsylvania Department of State as a foreign corporation pursuant to 15 Pa. C.S.A. §411(a). 

The en banc panel ruled that the Plaintiff failed to properly preserve this issue of jurisdiction before the trial court and, as such, the en banc panel found that the issue was not preserved. 

This was a case that many were watching to determine the validity of the argument that the Pennsylvania’s business registration law was, in and of itself, sufficient to establish jurisdiction over an out-of-state company where that company has registered with the state to do business in Pennsylvania. Based on this decision, litigants will have to await another day for the issues to be decided.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Waiver Issue Sinks Dispute Over Whether Pa.’s Registration Law Establishes Jurisdiction” by Max Mitchell, Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 25, 2020).

Split of Authority in Pennsylvania Federal District Courts on General Jurisdiction Issue

It appears that a dispute has arisen between the Federal District Courts of Pennsylvania as to whether or not Pennsylvania's long arm statute imposing general jurisdiction upon any foreign corporation registering to do business in Pennsylvania is constitutional.

In the case of Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent, No. 18-2119 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2020 Savage, J.), the court ruled that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, which allows for general jurisdiction on any foreign corporation registering to do business in Pennsylvania, is constitutional. 

On the basis of this ruling, the court in Kraus denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Anyone wishing to review the Kraus decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

In contrast, in the case of Reynolds v. Turning Point Holding Co., No. 2:19-CV-01935-JDW (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2020 Wolson, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after finding, in part, that Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme requiring foreign corporations to consent to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by virtue of registering to do business in Pennsylvania violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 

According to this Opinion, the Defendant franchiser involved in this matter did not have any significant contacts with Pennsylvania and the store where the Plaintiff was alleged injured was a separately maintained corporation.

The court in Reynolds ruled that the Defendant’s registration as a foreign corporation to do business in Pennsylvania was insufficient to subject it to general personal jurisdiction. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Dramatic Shift in Law of Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania Over Foreign Corporations

The case of In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. IV), No. 18-3622 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2019 Robreno, J.), which was handed down on Friday, alters the course of personal jurisdiction law in Pennsylvania relative to corporations.

In reviewing the history of the law on this issue, the court noted that, in 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) which brought about “a sea change” in the jurisprudence of exercising general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation.

In Daimler, the United States Supreme Court held that under the Due Process Clause, subjecting a foreign corporation to general jurisdiction in every state in which it “engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business” was “unacceptably grasping.”

In this Asbestos Products Liabilty Litigation case, Judge Robreno noted that, under Daimler, the exercise of general jurisdiction over a foreign defendant (except in extraordinary circumstances) was limited to where the corporation was “at home,” namely, to those jurisdictions in which the foreign corporation was incorporated and where it maintained its principal place of business.  

Judge Robreno noted that, in contrast, Pennsylvania has long had a statute which requires a foreign corporation wishing to do business in Pennsylvania to register in Pennsylvania. Correspondingly, Pennsylvania law provides that such registration constitutes a sufficient basis for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporation. 

As such, the courts in Pennsylvania had previously struggled with how to apply the law of Daimler in Pennsylvania.  Judge Robreno boldly laid that struggle to rest with his decision in the Asbestos Litigation case.

Judge Robreno concluded that: “(1) the Pennsylvania statutory scheme that requires foreign corporations to register to do business and, therefore, to consent to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, offends the Due Process Clause and is unconstitutional; and (2) the Third Circuit’s pre-Daimler decision in Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991),  finding that, by registering to do business in Pennsylvania, a foreign corporation consents to general personal jurisdiction, is irretrievably irreconcilable with the teachings of Daimler, and can no longer stand.  

As such, it appears that the only way jurisdiction over foreign corporations can now exist in Pennsylvania is when the corporate defendant is “at home” here in Pennsylvania.  Stated otherwise, the Asbestos Products Liability Litigation case appears to lay down a bright line test that limits jurisdiction in Pennsylvania to those corporations who have a principal place of business in Pennsylvania or which are incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review this In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. IV) decision may click this LINK.

UPDATE:  In an Order dated June 25, 2019, Judge Robreno certified the issue to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision as an interlocutory appeal. 

I send thanks to Attorneys James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this notable decision to my attention.

Foreign Corporation's Registration to do Business in PA Supports Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation

In the case of Murray v. American LaFrance, 2018 Pa. Super. 267 (Pa. Super. Sept. 25, 2018), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation. 

According to the Opinion, the foreign corporation Defendant had registered in Pennsylvania as a foreign corporation under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5301(a)(2).   Although the foreign corporation had registered to do business in Pennsylvania, it had a principal place of business in another state and no corporate offices in Pennsylvania.  

It was additionally noted that the foreign corporation did not own or lease any real property in Pennsylvania, had no bank accounts in Pennsylvania, and did not design or manufacture any of its products in Pennsylvania.   However, the court ruled that the fact that the foreign corporation had registered to do business in Pennsylvania under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5301(a)(2) amounted to a consent by that foreign corporation to personal jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  

As such, the Superior Court vacated the lower court’s Order sustaining the foreign corporation’s Preliminary Objections to the Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion in this case may click this LINK.  Judge Bowes' Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Source “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges in the Pennsylvania Bar News (Oct. 22, 2018).