Kevin Miller v. AXA Winterthur Insurance Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19210
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Miller challenges a Rule 12(b)(2) dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over Winterthur in a Michigan federal court.
- District court assumed Michigan long-arm statute could reach Winterthur based on a 2005 agreement.
- The 2005 Agreement, sent from Winterthur (Switzerland) to Miller (Michigan), outlines Winterthur’s payment obligations for Swiss proceedings.
- North of the Agreement, Miller had preexisting Swiss judgments and ongoing Swiss litigation arising from a 2000 incident in Switzerland.
- Winterthur removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; other motions were not reached.
- The panel affirms the district court’s dismissal for lack of specific personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan long-arm statute is satisfied | Miller argues the 2005 Agreement is a nominal transaction satisfying § 600.715(1). | Winterthur contends the statute is not satisfied by the Swiss-origin agreement. | Long-arm statute satisfied, but not controlling for due process. |
| Whether due process permits specific jurisdiction | Miller asserts Winterthur purposefully availed Michigan; the agreement relates to Miller’s claims. | Winterthur contends contacts are attenuated; no purposeful availment and no forum-directed conduct. | No due process for specific jurisdiction; Winterthur not subject to Michigan jurisdiction. |
| Whether Miller’s claim arises from Winterthur’s Michigan contacts | The Agreement is the direct source of Miller’s claim. | The Agreement related to Swiss disputes; Michigan contacts were incidental. | Claim is tied to Winterthur’s Swiss-related activities; arising-from requirement not satisfied. |
| Whether exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable | N/A or negligible burden on Miller; Winterthur has substantial U.S. interests. | Winterthur lacks Michigan presence; Swiss forum and law provisions favor Swiss litigation; translation burden exists. | Exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable; forum non-Michigan preferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Prods. & Controls, Inc. v. Safetech Int'l, Inc., 503 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2007) (minimum contacts require actual purposeful availment)
- Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus., Inc., 106 F.3d 147 (6th Cir. 1997) (three-part due process test for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contracts with out-of-state parties alone do not automatically establish minimum contacts)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established minimum contacts standard)
- LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enters., 885 F.2d 1293 (6th Cir. 1989) (mere mail communications do not establish purposeful availment)
- Calphalon Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (contract alone may be insufficient if not to be performed in forum)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tryg Int'l. Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996) (forum state's interest in redress against out-of-state insurers)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (state interest in activities treated as exceptional regulation)
- McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957) (state has interest in redress against out-of-state insurers)