King v. American Family Mutual Insurance
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1913
9th Cir.2011Background
- Timothy King sued American Family Mutual Insurance Company and American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin in federal court in the Ninth Circuit.
- The Kings reside in Colorado; the Companies are Wisconsin corporations with principal offices in Wisconsin and no Montana offices, employees, or agents.
- The Companies began Montana licensure, filed for certificates of authority, and appointed the Montana Insurance Commissioner as agent for service of process, but have not completed Montana’s regulatory requirements to issue policies.
- The appointment was irrevocable and remains in effect so long as Montana contracts or obligations exist, but does not by itself show Montana business activity.
- The Kings’ policies provide nationwide coverage, but the fact of nationwide coverage does not render the Companies amenable to Montana courts.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in the majority opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Montana’s appointment statute confer general jurisdiction over a foreign insurer? | King contends appointment converts to general jurisdiction because it facilitates Montana presence for testing business. | Companies argue appointment is a narrow, contract-based device, not general jurisdiction for actions outside Montana. | No general jurisdiction; appointment alone is insufficient. |
| Does Montana’s appointment statute confer jurisdiction under the long-arm rule for out-of-state business? | Appointment allows service on Montana official to reach Companies for in-state disputes connected to Montana tests. | Appointment does not create long-arm jurisdiction beyond Montana-based activities. | Not subject to Montana long-arm jurisdiction under Rule 4B(1) or due process. |
| Do the Companies have general or specific jurisdiction in Montana under the due-process test for minimum contacts? | The Companies were present in Montana by certificate and appointment, so jurisdiction is justified. | Limited contacts (no offices, employees, or Montana business) do not satisfy due-process requirements. | Neither general nor specific jurisdiction; due process not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Phila. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1917) (consent via appointment can extend jurisdiction when state statute allows broad service)
- Chipman, Ltd. v. Thomas B. Jeffrey Co., 251 U.S. 373 (1920) (state’s construction of service-of-process statute controls scope of jurisdiction)
- Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Construction Co., 257 U.S. 213 (1921) (appointment alone insufficient absent broader state-law scope)
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Chatters, 279 U.S. 320 (1929) (consent and state-law interpretation govern extent of jurisdiction)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (corporate activities and state licensing inform jurisdiction; consent is not sole test)
- Reed v. Woodmen of the World, 94 Mont. 374 (1933) (Montana’s agent appointment limits to debts/contracts; not a broad jurisdictional grant)
- Carter v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 326 Mont. 350 (2005) (Montana long-arm limits for insurers lacking authorization; policy-wide coverage not dispositive)