Lamprecht v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
262 Md. 126, 1971 Md. LEXIS 915, 277 A.2d 272 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-state manufacturer that causes tortious injury within a state may be subject to personal jurisdiction under a long-arm statute if it either regularly solicits business, engages in a persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from its products used within that state.
Facts:
- Piper Aircraft Corporation (Piper), a Pennsylvania corporation, manufactures airplanes in Pennsylvania and Florida.
- Piper sells its aircraft to independent distributors, not directly to dealers or consumers. The distributor for Maryland dealers is located in Virginia.
- Piper conducts a national advertising campaign in magazines, such as Business Week and Time, that circulate in Maryland.
- When Maryland residents respond to advertisements, Piper sends them promotional materials and refers them to the Virginia distributor, who then contacts a local Maryland dealer.
- Piper regularly sends service and maintenance bulletins directly to owners and operators of its planes located in Maryland.
- Piper has no resident agent in Maryland, is not qualified to do business there, and does not sell or deliver its products directly to anyone in the state.
- Jerome Lamprecht, a Maryland resident, purchased a Piper-manufactured Comanche airplane from Friendship Flying Service, Inc., a Maryland dealer.
- Lamprecht suffered damages when the airplane crashed during a forced landing in Maryland, allegedly due to a defective muffler system.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerome Lamprecht sued Piper Aircraft Corporation and Friendship Flying Service, Inc. in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, a Maryland trial court.
- The Circuit Court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Piper and dismissed the claim against it.
- Lamprecht, the plaintiff, appealed the Circuit Court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
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 a non-resident aircraft manufacturer that advertises nationally, corresponds with in-state sales prospects, and sells its products through an independent distributor network 'regularly do or solicit business' or 'engage in any other persistent course of conduct' sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction in Maryland for a tortious injury occurring within the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Hammond, C. J.
Uncertain. While the court tends to view Piper's activities as soliciting business and engaging in a persistent course of conduct in Maryland, it harbors constitutional doubts as to whether these contacts are sufficient to satisfy the due process requirement of purposeful availment. The court found persuasive the argument that a manufacturer cannot disclaim responsibility for the distribution pattern of its products simply because they pass through middlemen. However, rather than definitively resolving the constitutional uncertainty under the 1969 version of the long-arm statute, the court determined that a clearer path to jurisdiction existed under a 1970 amendment. The amendment added a 'substantial revenue' test, which provides a more direct and constitutionally sound basis for jurisdiction. Therefore, the court remanded the case for the lower court to determine if Piper derives substantial revenue from its manufactured products used in Maryland, which would satisfy one of the alternative prongs for establishing jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the crucial interplay between statutory interpretation and constitutional due process in personal jurisdiction analysis. By choosing not to decide the case on the ambiguous 'soliciting business' and 'persistent conduct' prongs, the court signals a preference for more concrete and quantifiable jurisdictional bases, like the 'substantial revenue' test. This approach provides a clearer, more predictable standard for future cases involving out-of-state manufacturers whose products enter a state through indirect distribution channels. The ruling encourages lower courts and litigants to focus on the economic reality of a defendant's connection to the forum state, potentially simplifying jurisdictional inquiries and avoiding difficult constitutional questions about purposeful availment based on advertising and marketing efforts alone.
