Michigan Court Weighs In On Specific Personal Jurisdiction

• Published date: 08 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Product Liability & Safety, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP
• Author: Timothy P. Larkin and Lazaro Aguiar

In Murphy v. Viad Corporation, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of specific personal jurisdiction in the context of asbestos claims under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in its recent decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. In doing so, the Court reinforced that specific jurisdiction cannot be established where the products at issue were never sold or marketed in that forum.

Background

On April 21, 2021, Timothy Murphy ("Murphy" or "Plaintiff") filed an asbestos-related product liability action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after being diagnosed with asbestosis in 2018. Murphy alleged asbestos exposure while serving in the US Navy aboard the USS Frank E. Evans ("Evans") in the 1960s while stationed in Long Beach, California. Murphy sued Defendant Viad Corporation ("Viad") for liabilities related to freshwater distilling equipment manufactured by Griscom-Russell that was installed aboard the Evans. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the Court had specific personal jurisdiction over Viad; Plaintiff never claimed that the court had personal jurisdiction via general jurisdiction. Viad subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Court's Decision

The Court began its analysis by stating that in order to demonstrate specific jurisdiction over a Defendant, Plaintiff's claims must satisfy both Michigan's long-arm statute and constitutional due process. Here, using the three-prong test established by the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court determined that specific jurisdiction would be established if:

(1) Viad purposefully availed Michigan;

(2) The cause of action must arise from Viad's activities in Michigan; and

(3) There is a substantial connection between Viad and Michigan such that exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable.

See Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F. 3d 605 (6^th Cir.) Plaintiff argued that Viad's predecessor, Griscom-Russell, manufactured and distributed hundreds of thousands of products from 1912 - 1964 into the stream of commerce and such products specifically flowed into the state of Michigan. Moreover, Plaintiff argued that Defendant "marketed and sold a fungible heat exchanger product line in Michigan and encouraged local businesses to purchase heat exchangers." While the Court noted that Plaintiff's complaint lacked "specificity"...