136 Conn. App. 671
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Power plaintiffs operate a Dayville, Killingly power plant selling electricity in the ISO New England market.
- May 2005 arcing event and February 2007 transformer oil contamination attributed in part to oil supplied by Naphthenics.
- Naphthenics was Swedish; January 2008 merged into AB Nynas Petroleum; March 2008 renamed Nynas AB.
- February 2010, plaintiffs sue for product liability; Counts 4 and 5 target Naphthenics and Nynas AB respectively.
- April 7, 2010, defendants move to dismiss arguing lack of Connecticut long-arm contacts, improper Hague service, and Naphthenics’ separate legal existence; court later dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction; discovery and evidentiary hearing issues arise under Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy.
- Court ultimately affirms dismissal, finding insufficient contacts to support jurisdiction over Naphthenics and no basis for general jurisdiction over Nynas AB; later discussion addresses discovery and Standard Tallow handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Lake Road argues CT long-arm and due process support jurisdiction. | Naphthenics/Nynas AB contend insufficient CT contacts and Hague/service defects. | Yes, dismissal affirmed; lack of CT jurisdiction. |
| Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to jurisdictional discovery or a Standard Tallow hearing | Discovery needed to establish contacts; hearing necessary if disputed facts exist. | No need for discovery/hearing; record shows no disputed jurisdictional facts. | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion in denying additional discovery. |
| Whether Naphthenics can be sued here given it ceased to exist as a separate entity | Naphthenics’ role and products caused damage; successor liability should apply. | Naphthenics’ separate existence ceased; cannot be sued; Nynas AB may be liable as successor only if jurisdiction exists. | Naphthenics cannot be sued as the separate entity; Nynas AB potential successor liability analyzed under due process. |
| Whether Nynas AB has sufficient contacts to support specific or general jurisdiction | Nynas AB is successor with prior CT sales and a depot serving the region, sufficient to justify jurisdiction. | Contacts are too attenuated and not causally connected to CT claims; no general jurisdiction. | No specific jurisdiction established; general jurisdiction not shown; affirmed broadly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48 (1983) (requires discovery/hearing when facts unresolved on jurisdiction)
- Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505 (2007) (two-step inquiry for long-arm jurisdiction; due process analysis)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007) (abuse of discovery process; implications for trial scheduling)
- West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp., 117 Conn. App. 465 (2009) (courts’ management of discovery and docket control)
- Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1 (2003) (discretion in discovery decisions)
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186 (2010) (standard for de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)