Frost v. AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc.
1:21-cv-00156
| W.D.N.C. | Mar 18, 2022Background
- On July 3, 2018, a Buick owned by Kristina Frost caught fire in Jackson County, NC; Frost’s two young children died and Frost suffered severe injuries after she could not quickly unlatch a harness crotch buckle on an Evenflo SureRide/Titan 65 car seat.
- Plaintiffs allege the QT/QT3 harness crotch buckle (made by AmSafe Commercial Products, later rebranded as Shield) was defective and would stick, preventing timely unlatching.
- Evenflo later recalled certain SureRide/Titan 65 models manufactured 6/20/2012–10/17/2013 for buckles that may become resistant to unlatching; plaintiffs were unaware of the recall before the fire.
- Plaintiffs sued AmSafe Commercial, AmSafe Inc., TransDigm Group, and Shield (alleging products liability, negligence, fraud, wrongful death, survival, bystander and failure-to-warn claims); defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Jurisdictional discovery showed AmSafe/Shield sold seatbelts and restraint systems into North Carolina (including to fire apparatus customers), AmSafe has authorized repair/service providers in NC, and TransDigm owns subsidiaries with NC locations; AmSafe Commercial rebranded as Shield and TransDigm acquired AmSafe.
- The Court held a hearing and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants in North Carolina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendants | Frost: defendants purposefully availed by placing buckles into U.S. stream of commerce, selling/servicing restraints in NC, and the alleged defect caused injury in NC | Defendants: insufficient forum contacts tied to this claim; rely on Walden/Bristol-Myers to argue no jurisdiction | Denied dismissal; specific jurisdiction exists under Ford and Fourth Circuit tests — contacts and claim nexus are sufficient |
| Whether parent/affiliate liability or alter-ego can support jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: corporate relationships/alter ego allegations reach parent entities | Defendants: maintain separate corporate identities (implicit) | Court assumed alter-ego theory for jurisdictional analysis and considered subsidiaries/parents' contacts in the jurisdictional calculus |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims arise out of forum-related activities (nexus requirement) | Frost: product was manufactured/distributed into U.S. market and used/sold in NC; injury occurred in NC | Defendants: argue contacts are not the defendant’s own and thus insufficient (Walden/Bristol-Myers) | Court distinguished Walden and Bristol-Myers and relied on Ford: the product served the NC market and caused in-state injury, satisfying the nexus requirement |
| Whether exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable and comports with due process | Frost: NC has strong interest; plaintiffs are NC residents and seek NC law remedies; forum is convenient | Defendants: litigation in NC burdens out-of-state defendants | Court found exercise reasonable — burden minimal (defendants secured local counsel), NC has strong interest, and other fairness factors favor adjudication in NC |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (a national manufacturer that serves a state market can be subject to specific jurisdiction where its product injures a state resident in that state)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction requires the defendant’s own contacts with the forum)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (no specific jurisdiction where forum contacts are unrelated to plaintiffs’ claims)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires the defendant to be essentially at home in the forum)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (purposeful availment requirement)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
- Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 2014) (prima facie burden and evidentiary approach to jurisdictional facts)
- Hawkins v. i-TV Digitalis Tavkozlesi zrt., 935 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2019) (plaintiff bears burden to establish prima facie case of jurisdiction after limited discovery)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (reasonableness factors in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Cohen v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 864 S.E.2d 816 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021) (applying Ford to find jurisdiction where an alleged defect caused in-state injury)