After Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) and subsequent decisions, as a practical matter, a corporation no longer is subject to general personal jurisdiction in a state unless it is incorporated in that state or has its principal place of business in that state. General jurisdiction over a defendant cannot be established merely because a corporation does a lot of business, even many tens of millions of dollars of business, in that state.
Instead, the jurisdiction inquiry in many cases now has shifted to an examination of whether specific jurisdiction exists over the defendant in that state. After McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), and subsequent decisions, the specific jurisdiction analysis considers whether the defendant has purposely availed itself of conducting business in the forum, invoked the benefits and protections of the forum's laws, and whether the claim asserted arises from the defendant's forum-related activities. The specific jurisdiction case law, including the effect of putting a product into the stream of commerce, varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction since the United States Supreme Court has not announced a clear test to be applied. As a result, a single accident is now more likely to see cases brought in multiple jurisdictions, where not all potentially-culpable parties can be sued in one state or can agree to be sued in one state. Expect also to see more litigation brought in Delaware, where many corporations are incorporated, as a result.
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.
