Federal Court Finds No Jurisdiction Over Insurance Company Existed Under Claims Asserted

In the case of Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. Freedom Life Insurance Co., No. 2:24-CV-02110-JHS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2025 Slomsky, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court of Pennsylvania, addressing a question of first impression, held that a Defendant foreign insurance company did not consent to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania to be sued by a private party on its own behalf for any cause of action simply based on the fact that the carrier obtained a Certificate of Authority issued pursuant to 40 Pa. C.S.A. § 46 in order to conduct business in Pennsylvania.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a medical testing laboratory that provided testing services to the Defendant insurance company’s insured members as an out-of-network provider.

When the Plaintiff had a billing dispute with the insurance company regarding services performed, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant in a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

The Defendant carrier removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity and then filed this Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant carrier asserted, in part, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the insurance company.

The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant carrier had consented to general personal jurisdiction on any claim because the Defendant had applied for and received a Certificate of Authority to do insurance business in Pennsylvania pursuant to 40 Pa. C.S.A. § 46.

The court noted that the referenced statute did not provide for general jurisdiction over foreign insurance companies conducting business in Pennsylvania.

Rather, the court noted that, under the plain language of § 46 foreign insurance companies wishing to conduct business in Pennsylvania must obtain a Certificate of Authority from Pennsylvania’s Department of Insurance. The statute further provides that, upon obtaining a Certificate of Authority, § 46 allows for any action arising out of a violation of § 46 that is instituted by or on behalf of the insurance commissioner to be brought against the foreign insurance company in Pennsylvania.

Here, given that the current action was not commenced by the insurance commissioner arising out of a violation of § 46, but rather was an action brought by a private party, the grant of jurisdiction provided under § 46 over a foreign insurance company was not found not to be implicated.

The court also held that the Defendant insurance company had no otherwise consented to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

Given that the court found that it lacked general personal jurisdiction, as well as specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant insurance company, the court granted the carrier’s Motion to Dismiss.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 30, 2025).

 

No Jurisdiction Where Foreign Corporation Had No Direct Contacts With Pennsylvania

In the case of Montgomery v. Bobst Mex SA, No. 24-367 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Arteaga, Mag. J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss based upon jurisdictional issues. More specifically, the court found that the Defendant, which was a Swiss corporation, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant sold all of its products, including the one that allegedly injured the Plaintiff, to a New York sole distributor. There was no evidence that the Defendant directed any of its activities at or in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the record otherwise confirmed that there was no direct contacts by the Defendant in Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the court noted that any subsequent sales in the United States was at the discretion of the sole distributor in New York, with no direction being provided to that distributor by the Swiss corporation Defendant.

Although the Swiss Defendant allegedly had knowledge of Pennsylvania end-users of the product, the court found that evidence in this regard, without more, was insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.

In the end, the federal court found that, without evidence of a strong relationship between the Defendant, the forum, and the litigation, the court could not exercise specific jurisdiction over that Swiss corporation as a Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.

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 Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on www.pexels.com.

Preliminary Objections Regarding Venue and Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Addressed by Superior Court

In the case of Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., No. 383 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 9, 2024 Collins, J., Stabile, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Collins, J.) (McLaughlin, J. dissenting), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court's granting of a defendant's Preliminary Objections based upon a lack of jurisdiction and also affirmed the dismissal of remaining claims under the doctrine forum non conveniens.

Relative to the issue of jurisdiction, the court found that the Plaintiff asserted no valid basis for jurisdiction over a manufacturer for injuries sustained in a surgery that was completed in a state other than Pennsylvania. 

The court also emphasized that the Defendant was not located in Pennsylvania and the product at issue was never manufactured in the state of Pennsylvania.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff did not assert general jurisdiction and, as such, any arguments based upon the Pennsylvania registration of the corporation to do business were considered to be waived.  The Plaintiff attempted to request a retroactive application of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. regarding jurisdiction over corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania.  However, the Court found that the Plaintiff had waived this issue of general jurisdiction.

In terms of the Plaintiff's efforts to establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant, the court additionally noted that the fact that the payment for the product at issue was sent to a Pennsylvania lock box was insufficient to support a claim of specific personal jurisdiction against the Defendant. The court emphasized that the lock box had nothing to do with the product liability issue.

The court agreed that the Defendants did not otherwise purposefully direct their activities towards Pennsylvania. Also, the Plaintiff’s claims did not, in any meaningful way, arise out of the use of the lock box. Moreover, the court noted that the lock box belonged to the manufacturer’s bank and not toe the Defendant manufacturer. The court reasoned that if the presence of an independent product distributor is insufficient to support jurisdiction, then the presence of an independent lock box also cannot be sufficient.

Relative to the issues raised under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court found it was also proper for the trial court to have dismissed the case on these grounds as well. In this matter, it was established that every witness was located out of state as were all of the Defendant’s alleged activities related to the lawsuit. The Superior Court agreed that the Defendant had demonstrated the hardship that justified disturbing the Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

The court in Kennedy additionally ruled that the fact that a corporate Defendant had headquarters in Pennsylvania, in and of itself, was not enough to defeat a motion filed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens seeking a transfer of venue.

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 firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

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.

Eastern District Court Dismisses German Office of Porsche From Products Liability Claim Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

In the case of Riad v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 18-5175 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023 Pratter, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had purchased a used Porsche from a non-Porsche-brand dealer. Years later, after noting problems with the vehicle’s engine and, the Plaintiff was instructed by Porsche to bring it to the nearest dealership for inspection and repair.

On the way to the dealership, smoke allegedly began coming through the AC vents into the passenger area allegedly causing the Plaintiff to suffer permanent lung damage and asthma.

The Plaintiff filed a products liability claim against or Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and Porsche AG.

Both Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court had previously ruled that it could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Porsche Cars North America.

The court granted Porsche AG’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court first ruled that it did not have general personal jurisdiction over Porsche AG as that entity was not “at home” in Pennsylvania.  Rather, that company was incorporated in, and had its headquarters in, Germany.

The court denied to find that Porsche North America was a mere alter ego of Porsche, AG, which would have permitted the court to impute general personal jurisdiction.

Rather, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that the two entities were separate legal entities that interacted with each other pursuant to arm’s length agreement and that neither party exercised dominion or control over the other. 

The court additionally stated that there was an agreement between the parties that expressly disclaimed any authority for Porsche North America to act as an agent or legal representative of Porsche AG.

The court also found that it lacked specific jurisdiction over Porsche AG in that there was no evidence that that entity had purposefully directed its business activities in Pennsylvania.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 16, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Clement Roy on www.unsplash.com.   

Court Grants Preliminary Objections Regarding Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation

In the case of Terry v. Aesculap Implant Sys., No. 2018-C-1938 (C.P. Leh. Co. Aug. 8, 2022 Caffrey, J.), the court granted a foreign Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis that the court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over the Defendant.

This matter arose out of claims by a number of Plaintiffs alleging that a knee implant device had been negligently designed and manufactured by a German company.  According to the Opinion, the knee surgeries at issue actually took place in the State of Texas.

As to general jurisdiction, the court found that the jurisdiction requirements were not met under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5301(a)(1).  Under that statute, a court in Pennsylvania may exercise general jurisdiction over an individual non-resident Defendant when that Defendant is either present in Pennsylvania when process is served or domicile in Pennsylvania at the time when process is served, or where that Defendant consents to the jurisdiction of the court. Neither of these scenarios were implicated under the facts of this case.

With regards to the issue of specific jurisdiction, the court found that the Defendant lacked sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Pennsylvania.

In the end, the court granted the Preliminary Objections and dismissed a Joinder Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 13, 2022).

Federal Middle District Court Addresses Jurisdiction Over Accident That Occurred in Virginia

In the case of Grady v. Rothwell, No. 4:22-CV0-00428 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction in a trucking accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Virginia.

The Defendant tractor trailer driver was not a resident of Pennsylvania, nor was La-Z-Boy Logistics, which was the company for which the driver was driving.

Judge Brann found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction as there was no evidence or allegation that the corporate Defendant was “at home” in Pennsylvania. Personal jurisdiction was also not found due to the fact that the subject motor vehicle accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann 
M.D. Pa.

Judge Brann ruled that the fact that La-Z-Boy did business nationwide, including Pennsylvania, was insufficient, in and of itself, to confer general personal jurisdiction over that party, as there was no allegation that the company had any locations or employees in Pennsylvania.

The court additionally found that there was no basis to assert specific personal jurisdiction as the underlying motor vehicle accident occurred in the State of Virginia.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 1, 2022).

Source of top image:  photo by Josiah Farrow from www.pexels.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.

No Jurisdiction Found Over Out-of-State Contractor in Construction Litigation Case

In the case of Bean Sprouts LLC v. Life Cycle Const. Serv., LLC, No. 1467 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Feb. 17, 2022 Panella, P.J., Dubow, J., McCaffery, J.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court did not err when it found that the Defendant did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Pennsylvania for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a construction contract dispute.

The Plaintiff was a construction and excavating company and the Defendant was a contractor engaged in construction projects throughout the country.

The Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action in Pennsylvania. The Defendant contractor filed Preliminary Objections asserting that it did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Pennsylvania such that a Pennsylvania court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

The trial court sustained the Preliminary Objections and the appellate court affirmed.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 8, 2022).

Photo by skitterphoto on www.pexels.com.

General Jurisidiction Fails But Specific Jurisdiction Prevails Over Trucking Defendants

In the case of Allen v. Foxway Transp., Inc., No. 4:21-CV-00156 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2022 Brann, C.J.), the court denied a Motion to Dismiss based upon general personal jurisdiction issues raised in a tractor trailer accident case that involved Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and out-of-state Defendants.  The accident actually happened in New York state.

The court found that there was no basis for general personal jurisdiction over either of the Defendants in this case.  Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann noted that general jurisdiction exists over foreign defendants when their contact with Pennsylvania is so systematic and continuous as to render them at home in Pennsylvania.  Here, the court found that the frequent freight hauling into Pennsylvania is simply the regular course of doing business which is insufficient to trigger jurisdiction over a Defendant.

The court additionally reiterated a rule that the designation of a Pennsylvania registered agent as a federally regulated motor carrier also did not serve to create general jurisdiction.

However, Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled that, since the Defendant was shipping freight that was destined to go to Pennsylvania and given that the trucker had injured Pennsylvania residents during the course of the trip, there was enough case-specific contacts by the Defendant to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant trucking company and driver even though the subject accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the other Defendant, who had brokered numerous Pennsylvania shipments, including the one at issue in this case, was found to have the same state-specific contacts with Pennsylvania to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over that Defendant as well.

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 from the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Addy Mae from www.unsplash.com.

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 Allows for Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania Over Connecticut-Based Company Based, in part, On Website Activity

In the case of D&S Auto Sales v. Commercial Sales & Marketing, No. 19-CV-7494 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 19, 2021 Nealon, J.), the court ruled that a Connecticut-based auto dealership can be sued in Pennsylvania because its website specifically targeted consumers from Pennsylvania and actively pursued their business.

After reviewing the record before him, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas found that enough buyer-seller activity occurred on the Defendant’s interactive website to establish general jurisdiction to allow the case to move forward in Pennsylvania.

In his decision, Judge Nealon noted that a number of activities occurred over the interactive website as opposed to visitors to the site just gathering information, including customers scheduling vehicle maintenance, requesting parts to be ordered, checking availability of vehicles, and inquiring about pricing.

The Court found that this level of interaction activity sufficient to form a basis for general jurisdiction over the Defendant.


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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Hands Down Decision on Personal Jurisdiction Issues

In the case of Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 7 EAP 2019 (Pa. Oct. 21, 2019) (Op. by Baer, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed jurisdictional issues in a pelvic mesh products liability case.   In the end, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on appeal.  

The case presented a jurisdictional challenge in a matter involving a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by an Indiana resident who had a surgical procedure performed in Indiana and who alleged injuries from an implanted pelvic mesh that was manufactured by New Jersey corporate defendants.

With regards to issues pertaining to personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the court reaffirmed the rule that a Defendant challenging personal jurisdiction has the burden of supporting that objection.   

The Court provided a detailed summary of the current status of the law pertaining to personal jurisdiction which was noted to be in a state of flux.  The Court reviewed several notable United States Supreme Court Opinions, the most recent of which was in the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2107).   Concisely, after the Bristol-Myers case, the following three (3) elements must be met in order for specific personal jurisdiction to lie over a defendant:  

First, a defendant must have purposefully conducted activities within the forum state, or must have purposefully directed its conduct towards the forum state.  

Second, the plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s activities in the forum state or directed towards the forum state.  

Third, overall, a finding of jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair and reasonable.  

Here, the court found that the Defendant’s suit-related contacts justified jurisdiction in that the particular Defendant supervised the design and manufacturing process of its product in Pennsylvania in collaboration with a Pennsylvania company.  The court additionally noted that this particular Defendant also worked with a Pennsylvania physician in developing and marketing the product which, in this case, was a medical product used to treat prolapsed pelvic organs.  

In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took a wider, big picture view in its analysis and determined that the case as a whole established ties between the defendant's actions in the forum state and the litigation.  See Op. at p. 36-37.

In favoring the Plaintiffs' position, as it has been wont to do, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a more narrow analysis of the jurisidictional issue as such a contrary view "could unnecessarily restrict access to justice for plaintiffs."  See Op. at p. 36.

The Majority Opinion of this 6-1 decision can be viewed HERE.

The Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Court Finds No Jurisdiction Over Legal Malpractice Claims

In the case of Dakota Oil Processing, LLC v. Hayes, No. 2018-10444-CT (C.P. Chester Co. April 16, 2020 Tunnell, J.), the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s legal malpractice Complaint after finding that neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction existed over the Defendants.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a limited liability company formed to develop and operate a crude oil refinery in North Dakota. In order to raise money in this endeavor, the Plaintiff entered into a collateral transaction loan with a venture financing firm. After the Plaintiff allegedly lost a $2.5 million dollar escrow payment, it filed this lawsuit for legal malpractice. 

The court noted that, generally speaking, it could exercise personal jurisdiction over a Defendant based upon either general jurisdiction or more specific, case-linked jurisdiction. 

Under the rules pertaining to general jurisdiction, a party can be sued in any state court for any claim regardless of where the underlying actions of the claim occurred where a Defendant can be found to be “at home” in the forum state. Under issues pertaining to specific jurisdiction, a party could be hailed into court on issues deriving from or connecting with the very controversy that established jurisdiction.

The court noted that one Defendant was a resident of Virginia and did not consent to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Another Defendant was a partnership formed in another state and which had also not consented to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. The court ruled that none of the Defendants at issue were registered to do business in Pennsylvania and did not carry on any continuous or systematic part of its business in Pennsylvania. As such, no general personal jurisdiction was found. 

Under the issues of specific personal jurisdiction, the court found that no Defendants had purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within Pennsylvania or purposefully directed its conduct in Pennsylvania. The court also noted that, the Plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to any activities by the Defendant within Pennsylvania. Lastly, the court also noted that, in order for jurisdiction to be fair and reasonable, a finding of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 

The court found that the contacts relied upon by the Plaintiff in an effort to establish specific jurisdiction were very minimal and consisted only of limited email and telephone contacts, none of which communications had anything to do with the Plaintiff’s claims. 

As such, the court found that there was neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction to be exercised over the moving Defendants. Accordingly, the Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice were sustained. 

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 1, 2020).

Should you need an attorney to serve as an expert witness in your legal malpractice case, either on the plaintiff's side or the defense side, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net or at 570-319-5899.

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.

Preliminary Objections on Jurisdictional Issues Granted in Favor of NJ Defendant Regarding NJ Accident

The common plea court in Monroe County addressed issues of general jurisdiction over a non-resident Defendant in the case of Carpintero v. Aegean Express, Inc., No. 2044-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 16, 2020 Williamson, J.).

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a passenger on a transport bus traveling from Pennsylvania to New York City. The bus broke down on the highway in New Jersey under dark conditions. It was alleged that the bus did not have any hazard lights or any other reflective devices to alert other drivers to its presence on the roadway.

Another tortfeasor Defendant, was traveling along the highway and, when a third, unidentified vehicle swerved to avoid the bus, the named tortfeasor Defendant lost control of her vehicle and hit the rear of the bus. 

The Plaintiff sued the bus company and that identified tortfeasor. The identified tortfeasor filed Preliminary Objections asserting that the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas could not exercise personal jurisdiction over her because she had no ties to Pennsylvania. According to the Opinion not only did the accident occur in New Jersey but that identified tortfeasor resided in New Jersey. 

Judge David  J. Williamson
Monroe County

Judge Williamson ruled that the basis for exercising jurisdiction over persons outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is found under Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A.§5322. The court noted that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute establishes that, in order for a Pennsylvania court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign party, that foreign party must have some “minimal contacts” with Pennsylvania. 

Finding no such contacts with the Defendant at issue in this matter, the court granted the Preliminary Objections and noted that the fact that the accident involved a bus owned by a Pennsylvania company which bus contained Pennsylvania residents did not constitute sufficient contacts to assert personal jurisdiction over the Defendant at issue. 

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 18, 2020).

Jurisdictional Issue Found To Have Been Waived

In the case of Murray v. Am. LaFrance, LLC., No. 2020 Pa. Super. 149 (Pa. Super. June 25, 2020) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court that the Plaintiffs had waived the effort to establish general personal jurisdiction over a Defendant based upon the Defendant’s registration as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania.  

The appellate Court found that the Plaintiff failed to raise the issue in response to the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections on the issues presented. 

This matter arose out of claims by the Plaintiff against a foreign corporation for negligence and strict products liability under claims that the Plaintiff suffered injuries due to excessive sound exposure from fire engine sirens that the Defendant company, which was a Delaware company, had manufactured in Illinois, which was where its principal place of business was located. 

The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to personal jurisdiction and submitted documents to show that only four (4) of its employees resided in Pennsylvania and that only 3.5% of its total sales in 2015 were made to Pennsylvania buyers. 

The trial court had sustained the Preliminary Objections and dismissed the claim after finding that the foreign corporation’s alleged contacts with Pennsylvania were not so continuous and symptomatic to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. 

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argued that general personal jurisdiction over the Defendant was proper given the Defendant’s registration as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania. However, given that the Plaintiff had failed to raise this issue at the trial court level, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the separate basis that the issues presented had not been preserved for appeal. 

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Cases.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 6, 2020).

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).

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Products Case Based on Jurisdictional Issues

In the case of Winters v. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC, No. 19-5398 (E.D. Pa. April 27, 2020 Schmehl, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by a product manufacturer on the basis that the manufacturer was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. 

In its decision, the court ruled that the Plaintiff could not rely upon a stream of commerce argument as a basis for specific jurisdiction.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s efforts to establish jurisdiction under Pennsylvania long-arm statute did not prevail. 

The court also held that jurisdiction may not be based upon a Defendant entering into contracts with Pennsylvania companies, since third party contacts are not relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction. 

The court additionally held that an unrelated office of the Defendant located in Pennsylvania did not suffice to serve as a relevant contact. 

The court granted the Motion to Dismiss and severed the action against the product manufacturer and transferred that part of the case to Delaware, where that manufacturer was incorporated. 

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.

Jurisdiction by Consent Concept Upheld in Two Recent Federal Court Cases

In two (2) recent Federal Pennsylvania District Court Decisions, separate courts held that the Third Circuit’s decision in the Bane case, recognizing general jurisdiction by consent, conferred by virtue of a foreign corporation’s securing a registration to do business in Pennsylvania, remains binding. 

This rule of law was relied upon in the case of Smith v. NMC Wollard, Inc., No. 19-5101 (E.D. Pa. April 24, 2020) as well as in the case of Replica Auto Body Panels & Auto Sales, Inc. v. InTech Trailers, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-02018 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 2020 Brann, J.). 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Smith decision may click this LINK  and this LINK for the companion Order.  

The Replica Auto decision can be read at this LINK and the companion Order at 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.