The Subrogation Strategist

In L.W. v. Audi AG, 108 Cal. App. 5^th 95, the Court of Appeal of California (Court of Appeal) recently held that a foreign manufacturer can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California state courts. In L.W., a minor child suffered injuries when an Audi Q7 allegedly malfunctioned and surged forward, pinning the child against a garage wall. The plaintiffs brought suit against Audi AG (Audi Germany) and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. doing business as Audi of America (Audi America). Audi Germany designed, manufactured and then sold the Audi Q7 to Audi America. Audi ... Continue Reading

In Federal Ins. Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs., Inc. No. 1-22- CV-00123-MSM-LDA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218185, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island considered whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, third-party defendant.Continue Reading

In Griffin v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., No. 47703, 2021 Ida. LEXIS 127, the Supreme Court of Idaho considered whether an Italian wine bottle manufacturer’s contacts with Idaho were sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer in Idaho for a plaintiff’s product liability action. Stated another way, the court considered whether a manufacturer located outside the United States (with no domestic presence) could be sued in Idaho because its’ product reached Idaho and caused injury.Continue Reading

In Allied Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jpauljones L.P. & Tek Elec. Co., 1:19-CV-00237-SNLJ, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 179225, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered whether defendant Jpauljones, L.P. (JPJ) was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Missouri because its website sold products to Missouri residents. The court held that the defendant’s nationwide retail website, with no particular focus or target on Missouri, does not in itself subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in Missouri. This case further narrows the reach of specific jurisdiction based solely on the defendant’s direct internet-based sales into the forum.Continue Reading

In Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Agility Logistics Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104179 (S.D.N.Y.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the “novel question” of whether the Montreal Convention allows recovery of inspection costs when there is no physical damage to the cargo at issue. Although acknowledging that its holding was, arguably, absurd, the court held that, based on the plain language of Article 18 of the Montreal Convention, the subrogating insurer could not recover the inspection costs its insured incurred.Continue Reading

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a plaintiff may bring strictly state-based claims in federal district court if they are related to a claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction. This is more commonly known as Supplemental Jurisdiction. One major issue that has arisen when such jurisdiction is asserted is whether or not the applicable state-specific statute of limitations is tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) upon the filing of the federal action. Recently, the Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594 (2018).Continue Reading

In Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec, -- A.3d --, 2016 WL 1569077 (Del. Apr. 18, 2016), the plaintiffs, Ralph and Sandra Cepec, who are Georgia residents, filed suit against, among others, Genuine Parts Company (Genuine Parts), a Georgia corporation that was properly registered to do business in Delaware. The plaintiffs filed suit to pursue asbestos-related personal injury claims having nothing to do with Genuine Parts’ activities in Delaware. Genuine Parts moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of general and specific personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied Genuine Parts’ motion, finding that, by complying with Delaware’s statute requiring foreign corporations to register to do business in Delaware and to appoint an in-state agent for service of process, Genuine Parts consented to general jurisdiction in Delaware. Because the Superior Court based its finding on a theory of express consent to personal jurisdiction, the court did not conduct a due process inquiry.Continue Reading