Amended May 4, 2015 Dylan Book and Karen Book v. Voma Tire Corporation, Hunter Engineering Company, Iowa Tire, Inc., Holt Sales and Service, Inc., SICE, S.p.A. and SICE Automotive Equipment Societa Italiana Costruzioni Elettromeccaniche S.I.C.E.-S.p.A.
860 N.W.2d 576
Iowa2015Background
- Iowa plaintiff Dylan Book was injured by a tire explosion during mounting in Adel, Iowa.
- Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Co., Ltd. manufactured the tire in China; VOMA Tire Corp. distributed in the U.S. and shipped tires to Holt in Iowa.
- Doublestar and S.I.C.E. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after jurisdictional discovery.
- Court considered whether a high-volume foreign manufacturer can be sued in Iowa under stream-of-commerce.
- District court initially dismissed Doublestar; on appeal, Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded for merits.
- Evidence showed thousands of Doublestar tires were shipped to the U.S., including direct shipments to Iowa via VOMA, establishing minimum contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doublestar can be hald subject to Iowa jurisdiction | Books rely on stream-of-commerce theory | Doublestar argues no targeted contact with Iowa | Yes; Svendsen/World-Wide Volkswagen approach applies; jurisdiction proper |
| Appropriate stream-of-commerce standard after McIntyre | World-Wide/ Svendsen should control; broad liability warranted | McIntyre requires a more stringent plus test for targeting | Maintain Svendsen-based test; not adopting stricter plus standard for high-volume maker |
| Direct vs indirect shipments to Iowa | Direct shipments to Des Moines and indirect shipments via VOMA show purposeful availment | Shippings routed by distributor; not targeted to Iowa | Direct and indirect shipments into Iowa establish sufficient contacts |
| Fair play and substantial justice balancing | Iowa forum serves as convenient, proper venue; witnesses located in Iowa | Defendant bears burden; Tennessee might be preferred | Jurisdiction reasonable given burden, Iowa interest, and witnesses’ location |
| Impact of heightened McIntyre standard on this case | McIntyre disruption should not deter existing precedent | McIntyre controls limiting cases | McIntyre is not controlling; Svendsen/World-Wide Volkswagen remain controlling in Iowa |
Key Cases Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (establishes stream-of-commerce and reasonable-anticipation test for jurisdiction)
- Svendsen v. Questor Corp., 304 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1981) (foreseeability and stream-of-commerce in Iowa products cases)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (plurality/concurrences split on stream-of-commerce tests and targeting)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. ?:__ (2011) (fractured majority; plurality adopts targeting approach, concurrences weigh other factors)
- Capital Promotions, L.L.C. v. Don King Prods., Inc., 756 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2008) (reaffirms minimum-contacts analysis in non-product setting; factors for fair play)