Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc.
207 F. Supp. 3d 1213
D. Colo.2016Background
- Plaintiff Old Republic (PA insurer with principal place in Illinois) sued Continental Motors (Delaware corp., principal place in Alabama) in Colorado state/federal court for products liability after an airplane was serviced in Colorado and later experienced problems.
- The Colorado repair station that serviced the engine was an FAA-certified, non-party, non-agent entity that accessed Continental’s service manual via Continental’s website.
- Old Republic alleged the repair used Continental’s online manuals/instructions, which did not require replacement of nylon distributor gears, and thus Continental’s materials caused or authorized unsafe practice.
- Old Republic asserted specific personal jurisdiction in Colorado because the servicing in Colorado relied on Continental’s online materials.
- Continental moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court considered whether exercising jurisdiction based on a non-party repair station’s use of online manuals comported with due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Continental based on a Colorado repair station’s use of Continental’s online service manuals | Continental’s online manuals were furnished for use in servicing engines; because the engine was serviced in Colorado using those materials, Continental purposefully directed activities at Colorado and is subject to specific jurisdiction | Continental’s online posting does not target Colorado; contacts are insufficient because the repair station was not Continental’s agent and third‑party actions cannot be imputed to Continental | No specific personal jurisdiction. Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction granted; case dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2004) (Colorado’s long‑arm statute construed to reach the constitutional limit)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (constitutional due‑process minimum contacts standard)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishing minimum contacts test)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment/purposeful direction)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (internet contact alone does not establish jurisdiction everywhere it is accessible)
- Advanced Tactical Ordinance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (interactive website presence insufficient without targeted contacts)
- Great Divide Brewing Co. v. GoldKey/PHR Food Servs., LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Colo. 2015) (posting information online does not by itself subject poster to jurisdiction in every forum)