Glenn v. TPI Petroleum, Inc.
305 Mich. App. 698
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Valero Energy Corporation appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary disposition for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The dispute arises from alleged groundwater contamination from leaky underground storage tanks at a Detroit gas station at 22645 West Eight Mile Road.
- This case was remanded from Glenn v TPI Petroleum, Inc to analyze due process and identify the specific jurisdictional basis, considering a covenant deed and Wideman’s affidavit.
- On remand, the trial court again denied Valero’s motion for summary disposition without complying with the remand instructions to specify the subsection of MCL 600.715 relied upon and to address the covenant deed and Wideman affidavits.
- The court applied Electrolines’ due-process standard and performed a broad factual recitation rather than a precise, subsection-specific analysis of limited jurisdiction.
- The court determined Valero was not subject to general jurisdiction and then examined limited jurisdiction, finding insufficient ties under MCL 600.715(1) and (5), and lacking proof of ownership/alter-ego that would support piercing of the corporate veil.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether general jurisdiction over Valero exists in Michigan | Plaintiffs argue Valero’s Michigan contacts are continuous and systematic via its subsidiaries and maps/web presence. | Valero contends it is a nonresident holding company with no Michigan property, employees, or consent, and no control over the Detroit site. | No general jurisdiction; Valero not at home in Michigan. |
| Whether limited personal jurisdiction exists under MCL 600.715 | Plaintiffs rely on Wideman’s activities and Valero-related subsidiaries to satisfy long-arm prongs (1) and (5). | Valero shows no direct acts, property, or contracts in Michigan; subsidiaries do not establish alter ego; no piercing of veil shown. | Limited jurisdiction not established under 600.715(1) or (5) based on evidence; no viable basis for jurisdiction. |
| Whether the trial court complied with remand instructions on due process analysis | Court complied with remand by citing Electrolines but did not specify the exact subsection or address covenant deed and Wideman affidavits. | Court failed to follow explicit remand directives and relied on pleadings rather than admissible evidence to prove jurisdiction. | Remand instructions not complied with; requires entry of summary disposition for Valero. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yoost v Caspari, 295 Mich App 209 (2012) (summary disposition; de novo review of jurisdiction)
- K & K Constr, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich App 523 (2005) (remand scope; comply with appellate mandate)
- Foodland Distrib v Al-Naimi, 220 Mich App 453 (1996) (veil piercing standards; when to disregard corporate form)
- Avery v American Honda Motor Car Co, 120 Mich App 222 (1982) (test for principal-agent and alter ego relationships)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2851 (2011) (continuous and systematic contacts; general jurisdiction limits)
- Electrolines, Inc v Prudential Assurance Co, Ltd, 260 Mich App 144 (2003) (due process analysis for jurisdiction)
- Kircos v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 70 Mich App 612 (1976) (presence requirement for general jurisdiction; agent consideration)
- Dutton Partners, LLC v CMS Energy Corp, 290 Mich App 635 (2010) (piercing corporate veil standard and liability)
- Seasword v Hilti, Inc (After Remand), 449 Mich 542 (1995) (piercing the corporate veil and related standards)