Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So. 3d 1114

Plaintiff Florian Hinrichs was a front‑seat passenger in a 2004 GMC Sierra that rolled over in Alabama; he became quadriplegic and sued for design defects (roof collapse; seat belt) and negligence.
The Sierra was assembled in Canada by General Motors of Canada, Ltd. (GM Canada), sold in Canada to GM (Motors Liquidation Co.), and ultimately sold to a Pennsylvania buyer who later brought the truck to Alabama.
Hinrichs sued GM (which later filed bankruptcy) and later amended to substitute GM Canada as a defendant; GM Canada contested personal jurisdiction.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction, found no personal jurisdiction, dismissed GM Canada with prejudice, and the dismissal was certified under Rule 54(b). Hinrichs appealed.
The Alabama Supreme Court considered general and specific jurisdiction doctrines, waiver arguments, and whether a stream‑of‑commerce theory or foreseeability could establish suit‑related contacts with Alabama.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of jurisdictional defense	GM Canada waited years and actively participated, so it waived the defense	GM Canada preserved the defense in its answer and timely pursued it once scheduling pressured resolution	No waiver; plaintiff failed to preserve argument below and GM Canada did not substantially forfeit the defense
General jurisdiction	GM Canada does continuous business tied to US sales so it is "at home" in Alabama	GM Canada is incorporated and based in Canada; lacks contacts rendering it "at home" in Alabama	No general jurisdiction; Daimler/Goodyear standard requires "at home" contacts and none exist here
Specific jurisdiction (stream of commerce)	GM Canada manufactured the truck for the US market and expected vehicles to reach Alabama; foreseeability suffices	The truck was sold in Pennsylvania and reached Alabama by the buyer’s unilateral act; defendant’s own suit‑related conduct did not target Alabama	No specific jurisdiction; Walden and related precedent require suit‑related contacts the defendant itself created; foreseeability alone insufficient
Fair play & substantial justice	Court failed to weigh balancing factors after finding contacts	No need to analyze because there are no constitutionally sufficient contacts	Court pretermitted analysis because jurisdictional threshold not met

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes "minimum contacts" due‑process framework)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (foreseeability alone insufficient; stream‑of‑commerce limits)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (plurality / competing stream‑of‑commerce tests)
J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (plurality; emphasizes defendant‑focused targeting)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (limits general jurisdiction; "at home" standard)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (reaffirms narrow scope of general jurisdiction)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction requires defendant’s suit‑related contacts with the forum)
D’Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft, 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir.) (stream‑of‑commerce cannot create jurisdiction where the particular product reached forum fortuitously)
Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635 (Ala. 2009) (Alabama discussion of stream‑of‑commerce and purposeful availment in product cases)
Ex parte Phil Owens Used Cars, Inc., 4 So.3d 418 (Ala. 2008) (no specific jurisdiction where product reached forum by third‑party resale)