Marchand v. Asbestos
52 So. 3d 196
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Plaintiffs allege injuries from asbestos exposure and sue multiple defendants including Rapid-American as successor to Philip Carey Manufacturing.
- Rapid-American is alleged to be the successor by merger to Philip Carey Manufacturing and subject to Louisiana Long-Arm Statute 13:3201.
- Rapid-American filed declinatory exceptions of lack of personal jurisdiction in three consolidated cases.
- Boatwright v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. governs this Court’s analysis of personal jurisdiction in the Louisiana circuit.
- Trial courts granted the exceptions; appellate review is de novo on personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rapid-American can be subjected to Louisiana jurisdiction via imputed minimum contacts. | Marchands contend minimum contacts exist via successor liability. | Rapid-American argues no foreseeability or purposeful availment; no sufficient contacts. | No imputed minimum contacts; Boatwright controls. |
| Whether Rapid-American has sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana. | Marchands point to defense of Louisiana cases and post-Boatwright facts. | Rapid-American did not purposefully avail itself of Louisiana; defenses alone are insufficient. | Insufficient minimum contacts; no personal jurisdiction. |
| Effect of the joint motion to dismiss Boatwright writ clause on personal jurisdiction here. | Clause constitutes a stipulation pour autrui benefiting Louisiana plaintiffs. | Clause does not bind Rapid-American in these cases; not a judicial estoppel. | Clause does not create binding jurisdictional waiver here. |
| Whether affidavits are permissible evidence on exceptions of lack of personal jurisdiction. | Affidavits should be inadmissible on jurisdictional issues. | Affidavits are permissible in this context. | Affidavits may be considered; admissible evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatwright v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 661 So.2d 169 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (establishes minimum contacts depend on purposeful availment and successor liability limits)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Sup. Ct. 1945) (minimum contacts required for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (purposeful availment and fair play in jurisdiction)