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.

Texas

• In re Reed (2016). Collateral estoppel from a Texas Rule 202 personal-jurisdiction dismissal does not bar a federal Rule 27(a) petition to perpetuate testimony, because the rules differ and Rule 27 does not require personal jurisdiction over expected adverse parties. A petitioner relying on serious illness must still make a particularized showing, such as medical evidence, that her testimony will probably be lost.
• Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983). A foreign parent is not subject to long-arm jurisdiction, or alter ego liability, for its subsidiary's acts merely because it owns all the stock and sets general policy while corporate separateness is observed. A party that does not raise fact issues on its pleaded theories in opposing summary judgment abandons them.

Utah

• Felix v. Novelis Corp. (2019). Placing a product in the stream of commerce, even with the maker's name and promotional text on the box, does not establish specific jurisdiction without an additional act purposefully targeting the forum state.

Washington

• Perkins v. United States (2024). The discretionary function exception does not apply where a mandatory and specific directive prescribes a course of action, and factual disputes over whether Navy asbestos directives were mandatory and followed preclude dismissal. Under Washington law, duty turns on foreseeability of a general field of danger, and disputed expert evidence on substantial-factor causation precludes summary judgment.
• Sorrentino v. Ammco Tools, Inc. (1st Division, 2024). In a pre-WPLA failure-to-warn claim, a jury may infer a plaintiff would have heeded an asbestos warning from evidence he read manufacturer materials and would have heeded intermediary warnings. The substantial factor causation test applies in asbestos cases where it is hard to identify the exact source of harm, and personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer was proper given its importer agreement requiring marketing in Washington.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). On a Rule 12(b)(2) motion decided on written materials, the plaintiff needs only a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts, and conflicts in the evidence are resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Evidence that the defendant marketed and distributed the asbestos-containing parts in Washington was enough for specific jurisdiction.
• Noll v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2019). A preliminary hearing under CR 12(d) to decide personal jurisdiction is an action tried on the facts and requires written findings under CR 52(a)(1); when the reviewing court cannot determine the trial court's understanding of the facts and law, it remands for findings.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). A court lacks general or specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that did not exist, and so could not place products in the forum's stream of commerce, during the period of the plaintiff's alleged exposure.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). A complaint stating the disease, the timeframe and place of exposure, and a theory of causation is sufficient under Rule 8. Allegations that defendants placed asbestos products into Washington's stream of commerce make a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum; a plaintiff exposed to similar products only in another jurisdiction (Toronto) does not meet that requirement in Washington.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum; exposure in Toronto to similar products does not create specific jurisdiction in Washington over a talc supplier.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). A proposed amendment is futile if it does not remedy jurisdictional deficiencies. Specific jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's forum contacts, and the plaintiffs alleged no but-for link between the defendants' Washington contacts and the exposure in Canada.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum; allegations that the defendant sold similar products in Washington do not suffice when the plaintiff's exposure occurred in Toronto.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum; exposure to similar products in Ontario did not arise from Volkswagen AG's contacts with Washington, and fairness to the plaintiff alone cannot supply jurisdiction.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Due process requires that a plaintiff's claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state. A foreign defendant with no Washington contacts is not subject to specific jurisdiction merely because it would be fairer to the plaintiff to litigate all claims in one place.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; selling similar products in Washington did not suffice where the plaintiff's exposure occurred in Toronto. General jurisdiction was lacking because the defendant was not at home in Washington.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). Specific personal jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum; exposure occurring in Toronto with no allegation of a but-for link to the defendant's Washington contacts does not establish specific jurisdiction in Washington.
• Noll v. American Biltrite Inc. (2017). For specific personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant itself purposefully availed itself of doing business in the forum. A third party's unilateral act of selling a finished product into the forum, and a supplier's sale of a component to an out-of-state manufacturer, are not enough.
• Griffin v. CBS Corporation (2016). In a case removed from state court under the federal-officer removal statute, venue is proper in the district where the state action was pending, so transfer is considered under § 1404(a) rather than § 1406(a), even if the case has no connection to that district.
• Noll v. American Biltrite, Inc. (1st Division, 2015). A Washington court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident component supplier whose product enters Washington through a regular flow or course of sales; actual knowledge that the finished product would be shipped to Washington is not required.

West Virginia

• In re Celotex Corp. (1997). A contribution action against a debtor's contractual indemnitee is "related to" the bankruptcy case under the Pacor test, giving federal subject matter jurisdiction. Stream-of-commerce allegations without conduct purposefully directed at the forum cannot support personal jurisdiction over a successor, and a forfeited error is corrected on civil appeal only if the Olano plain-error requirements are met.