United States: "Not Made in America" - U.S. Supreme Court To Determine Scope Of Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers

"Today, all the world is a market. In our contemporary international economy, trade knows few boundaries, and it is now commonplace that dangerous products will find their way, through purposeful marketing, to our nation's shores and into our State."

Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 52 (2010).

The loose term "globalization" can be used to refer not only to wide open communication networks connecting the world, but also to expansive trading networks. These networks allow the smallest manufacturer in one remote corner of the world to market their products on the other side of the globe. They also allow multi-national firms to take advantage of widely-dispersed supply chains and distribution channels to maximize their potential market, regardless of the company's original hometown.

However, while it has become infinitely easier to buy and sell goods across borders and seas, American courts have by and large been hesitant to allow U.S. citizens to drag foreign manufacturers into the country to face product liability lawsuits. While the 1987 Asahi1 decision arguably allowed for a generous interpretation of where a manufacturer might possibly find itself as a defendant, it was not until this past year that they true ramifications of the globalized marketplace on jurisdiction came to light.

It was in the context of one case from New Jersey and another from North Carolina2 that the Supreme Court decided the time had come to clear the air on Asahi after a quarter century of globalization. Or at least, the Court decided the time had come to make the attempt. The Court heard arguments in these two cases in January, and should rule within the next few months. First we will look at the cases themselves. Then we will discuss the ramifications of potentially expanded liability. Because nearly regardless of what the Supreme Court decides as the proper test, foreign manufacturers and the businesses they work with need to be aware of what can be done to protect themselves.

THE UNDERLYING CASES

The Nicastro3 case, decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2010 and argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 11, 2011, involved a product manufacturer from the United Kingdom, its American distributor by an almost identical name ("McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd. as opposed to McIntyre Machinery, Ltd.)4, and an injured New Jersey plaintiff. The manufacturer sold a recycling machine to its American distributor, which is in Ohio. The American distributor then sold the machine to Curcio Scrap Metal, located in New Jersey. Plaintiff Nicastro was operating the machine in October of 2001 when his hand got caught in the blades, resulting in four severed fingers. Nicastro brought suit in 2003.

When McIntyre brought its motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction, the New Jersey court recognized that there were none of the traditional contacts with New Jersey that would give the court jurisdiction. The New Jersey Supreme Court carefully stated it did not find that the manufacturer "had a presence or minimum contacts in the State – in any jurisprudential sense – that would justify a New Jersey court to exercise jurisdiction in this case."5 Jurisdiction, it reasoned, would have to come with the stream-of-commerce theory.

Go back to Asahi for a moment, the U.S. Supreme Court's statement on the stream-of-commerce theory. Unfortunately, Asahi was not a unanimous opinion. Far from it. It was a plurality, meaning there are two somewhat contradictory tests: Justice William Brennan's "stream-of-commerce" and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's "stream-of-commerce-plus." Brennan's test would allow that as long as a manufacturer "is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise."6 Thus, if the manufacturer knows it sells to a distributor that theoretically markets to the fifty states, it could be stuck litigating in any of the fifty states. O'Connor, on the other hand, called for something more: "purposeful direction." This test does not allow for jurisdiction when a product ends up in any state. Rather some sort of effort needs to be focused at the state: a particular design, advertising, a marketing agent in-state, etc.7 Without this extra bit of effort, no jurisdiction.

The New Jersey Supreme Court left no doubt, in words and actions, that it backed Brennan's more expansive idea. "[T]he increasingly fast-paced globalization of the world economy has removed national borders as barriers to trade."8 If a manufacturer works with a distributor that targets a fifty-state market, that manufacturer knows its product might end up with a New Jersey consumer. Awareness of the flow of stream of commerce thus satisfied, New Jersey could have jurisdiction over McIntyre and any other similarly-situated foreign manufacturer.

Where Nicastro looked at the idea of specific jurisdiction – how the defendant may have availed itself of the forum based upon the defendant's contacts arising from a specific controversy – Brown9 out of North Carolina argued general jurisdiction - "continuous and systematic contacts" with the forum unrelated to the specific controversy at issue.10 The underlying case involved two North Carolina teenagers who died in a bus accident in France. The accident allegedly occurred when one of the bus's tires failed. The tires were manufactured in Turkey by a Goodyear subsidiary. Their estates sued Goodyear and a number of its foreign subsidiaries. The foreign subsidiaries sought dismissal, but the court found general jurisdiction despite no apparent connection to North Carolina. The court though found enough minimal contacts based on the fact that (1) the tires had U.S. Dept. of Transportation markings permitting their sale in the U.S., (2) from 2004 through 2006 over 40,000 tires made by the foreign manufacturers were shipped to North Carolina as a part of Goodyear's "continuous and highly-organized distribution process"; and (3) the sale of the tires in North Carolina generated "substantial revenue" for the foreign manufacturers.11

With this, the North Carolina court found the foreign manufacturers had continuous and systemic contacts with North Carolina; the foreign manufacturers' activities in North Carolina were substantial; and that considering the quantity and nature of those contacts and activities, and the interest of North Carolina in the action and the convenience of the parties, the evidence weighed in favor of general jurisdiction. It could even be argued that it used the stream-of-commerce test to find general jurisdiction, even though stream-of-commerce had only been used for specific jurisdiction. The Court held the foreign manufacturers "purposefully injected [the] product into the stream of commerce without any indication that [they] desired to limit the area of distribution of [the] product so as to exclude North Carolina..."12 In this manner, the North Carolina court held as New Jersey did in Nicastro, that because of the essentially borderless global marketplace, a commercial enterprise aimed at the U.S. was an enterprise aimed at any individual State.

With these two cases before it, this January the United States Supreme Court thus found itself at one of the litigious crossroads of globalization.

THE SUPREME COURT

The arguments before the Court13 showed that all the justices were carefully considering the ramifications not only to the cases before them, but for the international marketplace. Among other topics, there were two key areas of interest: First, how a foreign manufacturer can protect itself in the American marketplace should the justices expand jurisdiction or at the least expressly adopt Justice Brennan's straight stream of commerce test and a similarly broad rule of jurisdiction; and second, whether an expanded view of jurisdiction would open up liability to any foreign entity whose products eventually make it to an American consumer, no matter how small the foreign company may be. Interestingly, the Court even identified the ramifications on small regional sellers whose products reach the other side of the country.

In Nicastro, the difficult issue for the manufacturer was that its distributor targeted all 50 states. It did not have a viable fall-back argument that it only focused on the Midwest, or excluded certain regions. Justice Sotamayor questioned the company's counsel on the coordination between the manufacturer and the American distributor, and needled counsel about how the British manufacturer's president attended the very Las Vegas tradeshow where the New Jersey company first saw the machine.14 Much of the argument around this topic focused on that problem: obviously the foreign manufacturer is going to support, and in some cases actively assist, their distributor in selling their products. And even regardless of the coordination between foreign manufacturer American distributor, Justice Kagan at the outset focused properly on the desire – not even really the intent, but the desire – of the foreign manufacturer to target the United States market. The manufacturer didn't care about which states precisely, it only cared about getting its products into the American market. Kagan thus posited why a foreign manufacturer couldn't be sued in any state, if its product was sold there. The argument circled in that way, with McIntyre's counsel trying to focus the argument on what the foreign manufacturer's "purpose" was and how, without giving the distributor express direction to go and sell in New Jersey, New Jersey could not have jurisdiction.

Justice Breyer went into the second issue: are even small companies open to liability anywhere in the country if they were to fall into McIntyre's trap? Justice Breyer set up a hypothetical:

Now, a person walks into a shop in either West Virginia or the country of India where they make pots. They're very nice pots made, actually, in West Virginia. And the potter makes several thousand a year, and this individual says: Mr. Potter, I want to sell your pots; send me a thousand each year. Where are you going to sell them? Everywhere. Great.

Okay? That's it. Now, suppose that the law were, as it could be perhaps, that it is sufficient for jurisdiction throughout the United States that the distributor or independent buyer said good, I'm selling them everywhere I can. And two or three end up in New Mexico, but it doesn't matter where they end up. Suppose that was sufficient to find jurisdiction.15

Counsel for McIntyre attempted to argue that jurisdiction would be inappropriate, based on Asahi, and further that the plaintiff should be forced to go where the manufacturer is found. Justice Ginsburg expressed concern about forcing plaintiffs to search the world and dive into various legal systems to seek justice. There is no doubt that this point will steer the decision, whether or not it drives it all the way home for plaintiffs.

Though the crux of the issues in Brown are the general jurisdiction implications of globalization, and the issues are in a sense quite similar to Nicastro, the arguments before the court focused quite a bit on how to deal with the parent and subsidiaries. To the point of the case, and showing the similar real-world implications of this and Nicastro, was this question from Justice Ginsburg put to Brown's counsel, Collyn Peddie:

Justice Ginsburg: Do you have any case law that supports your position, which, I take it – and correct me if I've got it wrong – that a subsidiary is subject to jurisdiction wherever the parent is, so long as some products made by the subsidiary are shipped by the parent to the – to buyers in the forum State?

Ms. Peddie: No, Your Honor, because that's not our position here. Our position is that if you participate in this kind – not a general one, but in this kind of very tightly controlled system, distribution and supply system, then there is general jurisdiction in the forum over the foreign subsidiary that participates in this.16

The arguments then went briefly into the effect on outsourcing. Brown's counsel argued that shielding subsidiaries in this type of "tightly controlled system" will encourage firms to start foreign subsidiaries rather than keeping plants at home, in order to shield themselves from liability.17 However, this argument did not get much traction.

NOW WHAT DO WE DO?

The Supreme Court is on the brink of potentially expressly expanding specific and/or general jurisdiction, arguably due to the ease with which many products now flow around the globe and, more precisely, the ease with which products are marketed and distributed to all fifty states simultaneously. Where does this then leave the international firm, regardless of whether they have subsidiaries around the globe or one small manufacturing plant in Manchester or Shanghai? And how as a domestic distributor can you protect yourself from liability that is best placed with the foreign manufacturer?

Even if the Court does not rule expressly, foreign manufacturers should presume they could be hailed into any of the fifty states where their distributor finds a seller. The key then is to make sure that defense of potential litigation is prepared for and practical. The same goes for distributors, seeking to protect themselves from allegations of latent defects in the products. As always, protection can begin and end with the contract or agreement between manufacturer and distributor. A few clauses that are important to consider for this contract are: (1) waiver of the Hague Convention for service of process on the foreign manufacturer, (2) indemnification language, and (3) additional insured language.

The Hague Convention establishes specific rules for service of process on a foreign entity. As a distributor, ensuring waiver of these cumbersome rules is important. After a costly suit has been filed – with onerous discovery looming -- is not the time to be on the phone with the American consulate in the Czech Republic trying to figure out how to serve a third-party complaint. Even the manufacturer itself may not want to have to worry about the Hague Convention's pitfalls, if it relies on American customers and if American jurisdictional rules are expanded by the Court. Therefore, contract language that waives Hague Convention requirements and allows for substitute service for the manufacturer on the distributor or on an American law firm can be beneficial to both defensive parties.

Next: strong indemnification language, a solid hold harmless clause. This clause can go both ways. Not only can it save the distributor from litigating a serious product liability matter on its own, even though the manufacturer was clearly the one who allowed the given design flaw, for example; it can also save the manufacturer from footing the bill if the issue actually arose from the distributor. Indemnification language thus needs to be carefully crafted.

It is important to also mention the forum selection clause here. In an indemnity agreement, it would also be beneficial to add in this language. From a distributor point of view, even if there is trouble holding jurisdiction over the manufacturer in the product liability suit if there is a domestic forum selected for any litigation of the indemnity agreement, the distributor may at least be able to seek relief from the manufacturer in that forum. Of course, it would make matters even easier if the distributor included a forum selection clause into any sales agreement with the end consumer of the product. But whether or not this use of the forum selection clause – given vagaries with levels of sophistication of the consumer, etc. – is not a topic for today. Both distributors and manufacturers should however give thought to including a forum selection clause in any of its vendor, distribution, or sales agreements to make any litigation smoother.

The insurance coverage issue is perhaps the most important of all, because this is what can control counsel and who foots the bill. Logical in most situations is to have the agreement indicate, within or in conjunction with the indemnification language, that for those indemnification situations the insurance of the distributor/manufacturer will cover the to-be-indemnified party as a named additional insured.

What about the arguments before the Supreme Court in the Nicastro case regarding specific instructions to the distributor? Is it feasible for a manufacturer to expressly tell a distributor NOT to sell any products in the State of New Jersey? The ability to instruct a distributor not to sell in a specific jurisdiction certainly exists. The issue really goes to feasibility of exclusion. A distributor can follow instructions not to actively market in a given state. But, continuing down this road, the distributor might then be forced to not allow any sales to go forward to businesses operating in New Jersey, or even order business customers to not allow the purchased products to ever make their way to New Jersey. This says nothing of liability that stays with products as they find their way to the secondary market. If the customer sells the product to someone else on the secondary market two years after the initial sale, and the subsequent purchaser in New Jersey is injured and brings suit in New Jersey, is the manufacturer safe from jurisdiction because of the original order to the distributor not to market in New Jersey? Is the distributor left holding the bag?

It may not be worth worrying about whether the Supreme Court will allow a foreign manufacturer to use such exclusionary language until they rule. That ruling should come very soon. Unfortunately, if it is anything like Asahi, companies wondering whether they could find themselves subject to the jurisdiction of some far-flung court may be left reading tea leaves.

Footnotes

1 Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (1987)

2 Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 52 (2010); Brown v. Meter, 681 S.E.2d 382 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)

3 Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 52 (2010)

4 The two companies were however distinct and independently owned, operated and controlled. Id. At 55.

5 Id. at 61. (emphasis added)

6 Asahi at 1034-1035.

7 Id. at 1032.

8 Nicastro at 52.

9 Brown v. Meter, 681 S.E.2d 382, 384 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).

10 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984).

11 Id. at 386.

12 Id. at 390.

13 The arguments are available at: Nicastro transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-1343.pdf; Brown transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-76.pdf.

14 Nicastro transcript at 19, et seq.

15 Nicastro transcript at 22-23

16 Brown transcript at 39.

17 Brown transcript at 41.

www.schnader.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.