492 P.3d 1245
Or.2021Background
- A Proton H Series hydrogen generator certified by TÜV exploded at HP’s Corvallis campus, severely injuring William Cox; Cox sued HP and HP filed a third‑party contribution claim against TÜV.
- TÜV is a Delaware corporation (principal place in Massachusetts) and an OSHA‑recognized NRTL; TÜV certified Proton’s generator design and performed the work in Connecticut to ISO 22734‑1:2008.
- TÜV moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion. TÜV petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for mandamus after the trial court refused to vacate.
- Evidence of TÜV’s Oregon contacts was limited: a 2006 Portland office/web postings, Oregon approvals (Field Evaluation/NRTL status), and some prior, unspecified certification work for HP in Oregon; no evidence TÜV certified hydrogen generators or marketed such products in Oregon.
- The central legal question: whether Oregon can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over TÜV given those Oregon activities, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ford decision and this court’s earlier Robinson framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson’s requirement of a but‑for causal link is mandatory post‑Ford | HP relied on Robinson’s test (but‑for + foreseeability) to show relatedness | TÜV argued its limited Oregon contacts do not support jurisdiction | Court disavowed Robinson to the extent it required a but‑for link in every case; Ford permits jurisdiction without strict but‑for causation in some circumstances, but foreseeability remains required |
| Whether TÜV’s Oregon activities made it reasonably foreseeable it could be sued in Oregon for HP’s contribution claim | HP: Oregon approvals, marketing, and prior work for HP made litigation in Oregon foreseeable because HP relied on TÜV’s reputation | TÜV: its work on the Proton generator occurred in Connecticut for a non‑Oregon manufacturer and it never certified similar products in Oregon | Held: TÜV’s Oregon activities were too limited and insufficiently connected to the specific litigation to make suit in Oregon reasonably foreseeable |
| Whether Ford compels jurisdiction because the injured product caused harm in Oregon | HP: like Ford, the certified product injured a forum resident in Oregon, so jurisdiction follows | TÜV: Ford requires a close relationship among defendant’s forum activities, the product market, and the litigation; that nexus is absent here | Court distinguished Ford — Ford was a paradigm showing systematic forum market service for the very product; no analogous market/service connection existed for TÜV |
| Whether mandamus relief (dismissal) was appropriate | HP opposed dismissal below | TÜV sought mandamus ordering dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | Court issued peremptory writ: trial court must vacate denial, grant TÜV’s motion, and dismiss HP’s claim against TÜV |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. _ (clarified that "relate to" can be satisfied without strict but‑for causation where the relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation is close enough)
- Robinson v. Harley‑Davidson Motor Co., 354 Or 572 (2013) (Oregon test requiring but‑for causation plus foreseeability—partially disavowed to the extent it demanded but‑for in every case)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. _ (2017) (requires an adequate link between the forum and the specific claims; rejects reliance on unrelated forum contacts)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (foundation for specific jurisdiction and purposeful availment)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and fair play limits on jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; corporation generally "at home" only in state of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (purposeful availment focused on defendant’s own forum contacts)