260.423.9551Call
215 East Berry Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Products Liability Case Providing Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction

Sebring v. Air Equipment & Engineering, Inc. (April 4, 2013)

In this products liability case, the Court of Appeals gave a comprehensive analysis of personal jurisdiction. The Court ultimately found that Indiana lacked personal jurisdiction over one of the defendants, NCI, who manufactured a component part of a product that injured an Indiana resident. NCI is a Texas company, has its sole place of business in Cleburne, Texas, and had had no business activities in Indiana for at least six years at the time of the injury. Further, NCI had not made the decision to ship the final product to Indiana.

In concluding that the Indiana state court lacked personal jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals relied on http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/breyer.bio.html Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion in Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011). The Court focused on Justice Breyer’s opinion because five justices did not sign on to an opinion. As the Court of Appeals explained, when a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, “the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977)

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S.153, 169 n.15 (1976). The Court agreed with the parties that Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion represented the narrowest ground.

In a nutshell, Justice Breyer wrote that when a manufacturer in one state places a product into the stream of commerce that causes injury in a second state, a plaintiff must show “‘something more,’ such as special state-related design, advertising, advice, marketing, or anything else” for the second state to acquire personal jurisdiction.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.

Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.

Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.

An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.
YesNo