Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.
592 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant in a lawsuit where the defendant has systematically served a market in the state for the product that allegedly caused the plaintiff's in-state injury. The plaintiff's claim does not need to causally 'arise out of' the defendant's specific in-state contacts; it is sufficient that the claim 'relates to' the defendant's extensive forum activities.
Facts:
- Ford Motor Company, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, markets, sells, and services its vehicles across the United States.
- In one case, a 1996 Ford Explorer, originally sold by Ford in the state of Washington, was later resold and brought into Montana by a subsequent owner.
- Markkaya Gullett, a Montana resident, was driving this Explorer near her home in Montana when a tire tread separated, causing a fatal accident.
- In a second case, a 1994 Ford Crown Victoria, originally sold by Ford in North Dakota, was later resold and brought into Minnesota.
- Adam Bandemer, a Minnesota resident, was a passenger in this Crown Victoria on a Minnesota road when it was involved in a collision.
- During the collision, the airbag in the Crown Victoria failed to deploy, and Bandemer suffered a serious brain injury.
- Ford advertises, sells, and services Ford Explorers and Crown Victorias in both Montana and Minnesota through an extensive network of dealerships and repair shops.
Procedural Posture:
- The representative of Markkaya Gullett's estate sued Ford Motor Co. in a Montana state trial court.
- Adam Bandemer sued Ford Motor Co. in a Minnesota state trial court.
- In both cases, Ford filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing its contacts with the forum states did not give rise to the plaintiffs' claims.
- The trial courts in both Montana and Minnesota denied Ford's motions to dismiss.
- Ford appealed the decisions. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- Separately, the Supreme Court of Minnesota also affirmed the lower court's ruling against Ford.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review both state supreme court decisions and consolidated the cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause permit a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporate defendant whose in-state activities did not directly cause the plaintiff's claim, when the defendant systematically serves a market in the forum state for the type of product that caused an in-state injury to a state resident?
Opinions:
Majority - Kagan, J.
Yes. The Due Process Clause permits jurisdiction because when a company extensively serves a market for a product in a state and that product causes an in-state injury to a resident, there is a sufficient connection between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. The specific jurisdiction standard requires that a claim 'arise out of or relate to' the defendant's forum contacts. The 'relate to' prong does not require a strict causal link; it is satisfied when a defendant like Ford purposefully avails itself of a state's market for the very product that injured a resident there. By advertising, selling, and servicing vehicles in Montana and Minnesota, Ford enjoyed the benefits of those states' laws, creating a reciprocal obligation to defend suits there arising from alleged defects in those vehicles that cause in-state harm. This approach is consistent with precedent like World-Wide Volkswagen and distinguishable from cases like Bristol-Myers Squibb, where the non-resident plaintiffs' claims had no connection to the forum state.
Concurring - Alito, J.
Agrees with the judgment but finds the majority's new gloss on the law unnecessary and unwise. The majority creates a new, undefined 'relate to' category of jurisdiction separate from causation, which risks needless confusion. A sufficient causal link does exist here, albeit a broader one than the strict but-for test Ford proposes. It is reasonable to infer that Ford's extensive marketing, sales, and service activities in Minnesota and Montana were a reason the vehicles in question were on the roads in those states. The phrase 'arise out of or relate to' should be understood as a restatement of the basic 'minimum contacts' standard, not as two discrete grounds for jurisdiction.
Concurring - Gorsuch, J.
Agrees with the judgment but questions the coherence of the entire personal jurisdiction framework established by International Shoe. The majority’s new 'relate to' test, based on an amorphous 'affiliation,' risks adding more confusion to the doctrine. The traditional jurisdictional rules, which focused on a corporation's presence, were more straightforward. For a company like Ford, which does business in every state, its extensive activities in Montana and Minnesota should be sufficient to establish its presence, making it answerable to suits there. The Court should re-examine its personal jurisdiction jurisprudence in light of its historical meaning and the realities of the modern economy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and arguably broadens the 'relate to' prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis, particularly for defendants with a national presence. By rejecting a strict causation requirement, the Court makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue corporations in the state where an injury occurred, rather than being forced to litigate in the state of manufacture or first sale. This shifts the jurisdictional focus from the specific product's history to the defendant's overall cultivation of a market in the forum state. The ruling will likely reduce defendants' ability to dismiss product liability suits on jurisdictional grounds when they have a substantial business presence in the state where the harm occurred.
