Specific Personal Jurisdiction – Stream of Commerce

|

Sawyer, etc. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, [Ms. SC-2023-0603, Sep. 6, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). In a case orally argued before the Supreme Court on June 5, 2024, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y71snwr7B3c), the Court (Cook, J.; Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur; Mitchell, J., concurs specially, which Parker, C.J., joins; Cook, J., concurs specially; Sellers, J., dissents) reverses the Mobile Circuit Court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of a wrongful death action arising from an accident in Mobile County caused by tread separation of a tire manufactured by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. Applying the framework of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021), the Court “hold[s] that Cooper Tire’s unrefuted sale, distribution, and advertising in Alabama of the particular tire model at issue ‘relate to’ Sawyer’s claims against it and, thus, specific personal jurisdiction exists in this case.” Ms. *4.

After the parties submitted evidentiary materials following limited jurisdictional discovery, the trial court found these facts: “a non-resident plaintiff alleges her non-resident decedent suffered an in-state injury caused by an allegedly defective tire manufactured by Cooper Tire. The specific Subject Tire was purchased by Barbara Coggin in Alabama, but there is no evidence Cooper Tire distributed or sold that tire in Alabama. The evidence is Cooper Tire manufactured approximately 5,000 of the Cooper CS4 Touring size [P]235/65R17 tires during 2015-2018. The record reflects that all of those tires were shipped to states other than Alabama.” Ms. *15. The trial court concluded that “Alabama also has less of an interest in asserting jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant to provide a forum for an out-of-state plaintiff than if the plaintiff was an Alabama resident. For all these reasons, [Sawyer] has not met her burden of showing that the connection between [her] claims and Cooper Tire’s activities in Alabama is close enough to support specific jurisdiction.” Ms. **15-16.

The Court notes that Cooper Tire and the trial court both rely on Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So. 3d 1114 (Ala. 2016) (plurality opinion). After thoroughly analyzing Hinrichs, the Court describes it as holding “that it is only when the defective product is sold in Alabama and that contact results in the plaintiff’s injury that specific personal jurisdiction can be exercised over the out-of-state defendant.” Ms. *23.

The Court holds that in Ford, “the Supreme Court has now clarified that, even when there is no direct causal link between a plaintiff’s claims and an out-of-state defendant’s contacts with the forum state, specific personal jurisdiction may still attach if the defendant’s contacts with the forum state ‘relate to’ the plaintiff’s cause of action. As it currently stands, our plurality decision in Hinrichs is inconsistent with Ford and is thus overruled.” Ms. *33. The Court clarified that “we do not intend to overrule, or even cast doubt on, the vast bulk of our personal-jurisdiction caselaw. Our personal-jurisdiction caselaw is generally consistent with Ford.” Ms. *33, n.1.

Applying Ford to the present case, the Court first rejects the trial court’s conclusion that 2015-2018 is “the ‘relevant timeframe’ for evaluating whether Cooper Tire had sufficient contacts with Alabama for the purpose of determining specific personal jurisdiction.” Ms. *39. In concluding that specific personal jurisdiction was established, the Court first notes that “Sawyer’s complaint broadly alleged that Cooper Tire had sold and distributed CS4 Touring tires in Alabama before the underlying accident and that it was the sale and distribution of the subject tire in Alabama that had caused her son’s death… [and emphasizes] when considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a trial court must consider as true the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint that are ‘not controverted by the defendant’s affidavits,’ and, ‘where the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s affidavits conflict,’ the trial court ‘must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’ Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 143 So. 3d at 787-88.” Ms. **39-41.

The Court holds that “[t]aken together, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford, Sawyer’s unrefuted allegations that Cooper Tire (1) sold and distributed the CS4 Touring tire, including the subject tire, in Alabama, (2) maintained an extensive dealer network in Alabama, and (3) marketed this tire model in Alabama all support a finding that her claims ‘relate to’ Cooper Tire’s contacts with Alabama.” Ms. *46.

Finally, the Court rejects Cooper’s contention that Sawyer and her deceased son’s Florida residency support the trial court’s decision. Under Ford and the facts of this case, the fact that Sawyer and her son were not Alabama residents is not determinative because Cooper Tire’s contacts with Alabama are sufficient for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in this case.” Ms. **53-54.

Related Documents

Categories: