Personal Jurisdiction in Asbestos Cases

Decisions in our library in which the court ruled on personal jurisdiction over a defendant: 271 cases, by state. Each line gives what the court held, in our words; the law differs from state to state and changes, so read the opinion and talk to a lawyer before relying on any of them.

About this issue

A court can hear a claim against a company only if it has personal jurisdiction over that company. This matters in asbestos cases because plaintiffs often sue many companies headquartered in other states.

The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the doctrine in the last decade:

• General jurisdiction, where a company can be sued for anything, is usually limited to the states where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.
• Specific jurisdiction requires that the company have purposefully established contacts with the state, and that the claim arise out of or relate to those contacts. The plaintiff living in the state is not enough on its own.
• In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway (2023), the Court upheld Pennsylvania's law treating registration to do business in the state as consent to be sued there on any claim. Registration in other states does not automatically mean consent; it depends on each state's law, and other challenges to such laws remain open.

Decisions in this section decide whether a company must defend an asbestos case in the state where it was filed.

Alabama

• Smith v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to the defendant's own contacts with the forum, and a parent company's jurisdiction cannot rest on its subsidiary's contacts unless the veil is pierced by showing complete control and domination. Oversight, shared branding and public defense of a product did not meet that standard.

Arizona

• Hatten v. Grobet USA (2020). A removing defendant claiming fraudulent joinder must show there is no possibility a state court would find the complaint states a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant, and a removing defendant asserting federal enclave jurisdiction bears the burden of showing the events occurred on land under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Arkansas

• Kimmons v. Autozone, Inc. (2020). A talc supplier that knew the manufacturer sold finished products nationwide, including in Arkansas, and that was the manufacturer's exclusive supplier, did not purposefully direct activities at Arkansas, so asserting specific personal jurisdiction over it would violate due process.

California

• Corin v. Arkema, Inc. (2024). A notice of removal based on diversity must allege facts showing each party's citizenship, not conclusions or information and belief. Amendment is futile where the forum defendant rule would bar a new removal and the amendment would not relate back.
• Beierschmitt v. Grobet File Company OF America, LLC (2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2022). Specific personal jurisdiction does not require a strict causal link between the defendant's forum activities and the plaintiff's injury; it is enough that the defendant marketed and sold the type of product in the forum and a forum resident was allegedly harmed by it there.
• Shelton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021). Placing a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not purposeful direction toward the forum state, and a small number of pump sales to a Navy contract and one winch did not establish specific jurisdiction on the pleadings and evidence presented.
• Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co. (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2021). Under California law, a foreign corporation may be served through its "general manager in this state," which includes its wholly-owned domestic subsidiary's agent for service, so Hague Convention procedures need not be followed.
• Bader v. Avon Products, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2020). At the jurisdictional stage, a plaintiff suing over an allegedly defective product sold in the forum need not prove the product defect (here, asbestos in the talc); a direct in-forum sale of the allegedly defective product to the plaintiff is enough to show the claims arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts.
• Toy v. Viking Pump (In re Toy Asbestos Litigation) (2019). When a defendant's submissions do not contradict the complaint, the court accepts the allegations as true. Allegations that the defendant supplied asbestos-containing products into California can make a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction through purposeful availment.
• Toy v. Honeywell International Inc. (2019). Where a defendant's uncontroverted declaration shows it never made, sold or distributed asbestos-containing parts, the plaintiff's asbestos claims cannot arise from its forum activities, so specific personal jurisdiction is lacking. Allegations contradicted by affidavit are not assumed true.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2019). Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over tort claims arising on federal enclaves, and Mare Island Naval Shipyard was a federal enclave at the time of the alleged exposure, so claims based on work there stay in federal court even after the Navy-service claims were dropped.
• Continental Casualty v. Chatz for Cfb/wfb Trust (2018). A party that repeatedly told the court that a threshold ruling decided the case and that judgment should be entered against it is judicially and equitably estopped from later raising a new coverage defense. An insurer's vexatious and unreasonable delay in paying claims supports a penalty and fees under Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code.
• BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court for County OF Los Angeles (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). Under Goodyear and Daimler, a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where its affiliations with the state make it essentially at home, judged by its operations nationwide and worldwide; substantial, continuous and systematic business in a state is not enough when that business is a small share of its overall operations.
• Lund v. 3M Company (2013). A court may grant jurisdictional discovery when pertinent jurisdictional facts are controverted or a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary, including where a defendant's declaration conflicts with its own website.
• Cundiff v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). A defendant asserting the federal enclave defense bears the burden of proving the plaintiff's exposures occurred within the enclave, including the specific location of the injury. Fault allocation and noneconomic damages are upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not shocking to the conscience.
• Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2010). In a large multi-defendant asbestos case, a moving defendant need not show that every defendant is subject to jurisdiction in the alternative forum, but where that is uncertain the action should be stayed rather than dismissed so the plaintiff can return to California if the other forum proves unavailable.
• Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2009). In a large multi-defendant asbestos case, a defendant seeking a forum non conveniens stay need not show that every defendant is subject to jurisdiction in the alternative forum. The action may be stayed, not dismissed, pending a determination of that forum's jurisdiction over all defendants.
• Slaughter v. Union Carbide Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2007). A suitable alternative forum for forum non conveniens is one where all named defendants can be sued, so an action may be dismissed only if all defendants are shown to be subject to jurisdiction there. Otherwise it may only be stayed, and if the alternative forum's limitations period has run, the stay must be conditioned on defendants waiving that defense.
• Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000). Under Code Civ. Proc. § 340.2, the one-year limitations period runs from 'disability' (loss of work due to asbestos preventing the regular occupation), so a worker who retired for unrelated reasons had not started the clock, and filing an earlier action for a different disease does not start it; the rule against splitting a cause of action is not a limitations rule.

Connecticut

• Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2016). A corporation is not subject to general jurisdiction merely because it has substantial but small-share contacts with a state; absent incorporation or principal place of business, it is rarely 'essentially at home' there. Connecticut's registration and agent-appointment statutes, being unclear, were not construed as consent to general jurisdiction.

Delaware

• In re Paddock Enterprises, LLC (2022). A bankruptcy court has post-confirmation subject matter jurisdiction over a subpoena dispute that has a close nexus to implementing and administering the confirmed plan and trust agreement, and although compliance burden was significant it did not outweigh relevance, so the subpoenas were not quashed but the responding party is entitled to reasonable expenses.
• Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec (2016). Delaware's foreign-corporation registration statutes (8 Del. C. §§ 371 and 376) provide a means of serving process and do not constitute consent to general jurisdiction; after Daimler, jurisdiction over a registered foreign corporation must satisfy due process.

Florida

• Lornamead, Inc. v. Fleemin (4th District, 2023). A defendant that contests long-arm jurisdiction with affidavit evidence defeats jurisdiction unless the plaintiff rebuts it; placing goods in the stream of commerce, or a handful of possible sales, does not by itself show purposeful contacts with the forum state.
• Andres v. Raytheon Technologies Corp. (2022). A plaintiff must plead specific jurisdictional facts for each defendant, and a foreign parent holding company is not subject to jurisdiction in a forum merely because its subsidiaries do business there absent an alter ego or instrumentality theory.
• Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc. v. Onorato (3rd District, 2018). In a products liability case, a plaintiff must show the non-resident defendant purposefully directed its products at the forum state. Products merely finding their way into the state, or a defendant's prediction that they might, do not satisfy due process minimum contacts.
• Highland Stucco and Lime v. Onorato (3rd District, 2018). Florida's exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state product maker requires minimum contacts showing purposeful availment of the forum. Foreseeability that a product may reach Florida, or placing goods in the stream of commerce, is not enough.
• Southern Wall Products v. Bolin (4th District, 2018). Specific personal jurisdiction requires the defendant's forum contacts to relate to the challenged conduct and be purposefully directed at the forum; a single use of a product in the forum and the defendant's current sales decades later do not establish minimum contacts for 1970s exposure.
• Stevenson v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2018). A court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident supplier only if the plaintiff's claims arise from the supplier's own contacts with the forum and the supplier purposefully availed itself of the forum. Foreseeability that its product would reach the forum is not enough.
• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (2018). In the Eleventh Circuit, specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant's forum contacts be a but-for cause of the claimed tort, and a corporation is not at home in a state, or deemed to consent to general jurisdiction, merely by substantial business there or by registering and appointing a service agent under Florida law.
• Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Jones (2nd District, 2017). A plaintiff proceeding on specific jurisdiction must show the nonresident defendant's own suit-related contacts with the forum; a plaintiff's or third party's unilateral activity, an unshown parent-subsidiary control, or an online order for a product does not establish purposeful availment.
• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (2016). Where the medical community accepts that asbestos causes mesothelioma, the court need not conduct an extensive general-causation Daubert analysis, and weight-of-the-evidence expert testimony may go to the jury. The bare metal defense does not bar liability where the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant's own original asbestos-containing parts.
• Peruyero v. Airbus Sas (2014). The Florida long-arm statute in effect when the allegedly asbestos-containing product was made or distributed controls. Under the 1955/1957 version, §47.16, specific jurisdiction requires a causal connection between the defendant's Florida activities and the claim, and a plaintiff who does not show that connection cannot establish jurisdiction.

Georgia

• Davis v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (2018). Under OCGA § 34-9-242, the 'accident' for an occupational disease is the exposure to asbestos, so where exposure occurred during employment under a contract made in Alabama for work exclusively there, Georgia's Board lacks jurisdiction even if diagnosis, disability and death occurred in Georgia.

Illinois

• Lishman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). A defendant does not waive a personal jurisdiction defense by a brief delay or by preliminary pretrial participation, and specific jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff's injury arise from or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state.
• Hicks v. Ford Motor Company (2020). A non-diverse defendant dismissed by involuntary summary judgment may be treated as fraudulently joined when procedural rules (waiver, and Illinois limits on reconsideration with late evidence) leave no reasonable possibility of reinstating the claim; the common-defense exception does not apply where the reason is specific to that defendant.
• Linder v. AW Chesterton Co. (5th District, 2020). A protective order under Rule 201(c)(1) is within the trial court's discretion and need not rest on confidentiality or trade secrets. Specific personal jurisdiction over a seller exists where it purposefully sold the allegedly asbestos-containing pumps in Illinois, without the plaintiff first proving a defect.
• Amling v. Schlage Lock Co. (2019). A declaratory judgment about who must indemnify a liability is generally not ripe until liability has been found in the underlying suit. Even if jurisdiction existed, a court may decline to hear a declaratory suit whose result could be irrelevant if the underlying case finds no liability.
• Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc. (1st District, 6th Division, 2018). A nonresident corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is "at home," and specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum and the plaintiff's specific claims, which the plaintiff must support with competent evidence; registered-agent status and unrelated Illinois business do not amount to consent, and the court declined to adopt "jurisdiction by necessity."
• John Crane, Inc. v. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, Apc (2017). A court in the forum state lacks specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state lawyers when the alleged fraud was centered on litigation in other states and the only Illinois contacts were discovery responses and communications sent to the plaintiff there. Under the general venue statute, a plaintiff's receipt of such papers and its economic harm in the district do not make venue proper.
• Hubert v. General Electric Company (2016). A representative of a decedent's estate is deemed a citizen of the decedent's state for diversity purposes, so the complaint must allege the decedent's and the defendant's citizenship and clearly plead an amount in controversy above $75,000.
• Perez v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). A surviving spouse may pursue a loss of consortium claim for injury to the marriage between the husband's injury and death as derivative of a Survival Act claim. Registering to do business and appointing an agent for service under Illinois law is not consent to general personal jurisdiction, and a global corporation is not "at home" in Illinois merely because it does business there.
• Hasenberg v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2014). A defendant meets the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), by showing it is a person acting under a federal officer, sued for acts under color of office, with a colorable federal defense. A plausible government contractor defense is enough, and its validity need not be resolved to decide removal.
• Shipley v. Hoke (4th District, 2014). Termination of supplementary proceedings under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 277(f) does not remove subject-matter jurisdiction, but it is an affirmative defense that bars later relief under section 2-1402(f)(1). A citation's restraining provision binds only the party the citation is directed to, so a third party must be served with its own citation.
• Flanders v. California Coastal Communities (5th District, 2005). An Illinois court cannot exercise long-arm personal jurisdiction over a corporation on the basis that it might be a predecessor's corporate successor; the court must actually determine that the corporation is the successor before jurisdiction can rest on that status.
• Nelson v. Keene Corp. (1st District, 1st Division, 1996). A civil action is commenced only by filing a complaint with the proper clerk and having summons issued and served. The limited jurisdiction of a Rule 217 testimony-preservation proceeding does not carry over to a new action, and delivering complaints to a deputy clerk in the judge's courtroom is not a valid filing.
• WR Grace & Co. v. Csr Ltd. (3rd District, 1996). An out-of-state asbestos supplier that sold fiber to a manufacturer knowing it would be used in products sold in Illinois, and that promoted its use, has minimum contacts with Illinois under the stream-of-commerce tests of Asahi and World-Wide Volkswagen, and exercising jurisdiction is reasonable.

Indiana

• Castor v. US (1995). The Bureau of Prisons' decisions on how to manage asbestos-containing material in a prison involve judgment grounded in public policy, so the FTCA's discretionary function exception bars the claims and the court lacks jurisdiction.

Kansas

• Dickenson v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2022). When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, jurisdictional discovery is liberally granted where pertinent jurisdictional facts are controverted or a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary, and denying it would prejudice the plaintiff.

Kentucky

• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2022). State agencies, including school boards, are subject to the Workers' Compensation Act, so the Department of Workers' Claims, not the Claims Commission, has jurisdiction over a school employee's asbestos-related work injury claim. Unpaid benefits owed before the 2017 amendment to KRS 342.040(1) carry the new 6% interest rate.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2022). Under Kentucky's comparative-fault statute, a jury may be asked to apportion fault to a party dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, because apportionment only limits the remaining defendants' liability and does not impose liability on the absent party.