Factory Mutual Insurance Company v. Flender Corporation
6:24-cv-01081
| D. Kan. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Factory Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Iron Star Wind Project, LLC (owner/operator of a Kansas wind farm), sued Flender Corporation over alleged gearbox manufacturing defects causing wind turbine damage in Kansas.
- Flender is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois; it is registered to do business in Kansas.
- Factory Mutual claims Flender’s product caused over $1 million in damages to a wind turbine at Iron Star’s site.
- Flender moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient ties to Kansas despite being registered there.
- Key procedural posture: The matter was removed to federal court, where the defendant’s motion is based solely on personal jurisdiction grounds.
- The parties dispute not just the merits, but also whether consent-by-registration under Kansas law subjects Flender to general personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does registration to do business in Kansas constitute consent to general personal jurisdiction? | Yes; registration is express consent by statute and precedent. | No; their business registration doesn't override modern due process limits. | Yes; registration constitutes express, irrevocable consent. |
| Is general personal jurisdiction proper over Flender in Kansas? | Yes; express written consent under Kansas law suffices. | No; Flender not 'at home' in Kansas, only incorporated in Delaware/Illinois. | Yes; Kansas law and Supreme Court precedent permit it. |
| Does service on registered agent vs. Secretary of State affect consent? | No; statutory and precedent-based consent is not dependent on manner of service. | Yes; only proper if service made via Secretary of State. | No; argument waived and foreclosed by Kansas law. |
| Would jurisdiction offend 'fair play and substantial justice'? | No; Flender has not argued it would, and nothing suggests so. | (No argument raised.) | No; court sees no reason to analyze this further. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction is limited to corporation’s place of incorporation or principal business location)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (defines scope of general jurisdiction for corporations)
- Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122 (holding that consent via business registration is valid basis for jurisdiction)
- Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co., 243 U.S. 93 (early case approving consent-by-registration statutes for jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts due process test for personal jurisdiction)