288 A.3d 284
Del. Super. Ct.2023Background
- On May 31, 2020 a dump truck (originally purchased new by Oak Ridge in 2013 and later resold through multiple dealers to Earth Movers in 2018) was involved in a collision on Delaware Route 1; the crash caused life‑threatening injuries to Derrick Ross and his three minor children.
- Plaintiffs allege the dump truck’s PTO control system had been modified (removing a two‑step control and replacing it with a toggle) at some point after 2013, rendering it unsafe; it is unknown who made the modification.
- Oak Ridge was added as a third‑party and then direct defendant; it filed an amended answer within 20 days of its initial answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and later moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court permitted jurisdictional discovery; Oak Ridge submitted an affidavit that it has never been incorporated in Delaware, maintained offices, employees, bank accounts, property, sales, or solicitation in Delaware and derives no Delaware revenue.
- Plaintiffs (and co‑defendant Allan Myers) argued Oak Ridge waived the jurisdictional defense and alternatively that Delaware’s long‑arm statute (including dual jurisdiction) and due process permitted jurisdiction; the court rejected those arguments and granted Oak Ridge’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal jurisdiction | Oak Ridge failed to assert lack of PJ in its initial pleading and thus waived the defense (Hornberger rule: challenge must be in first defensive move). | Oak Ridge timely amended its answer within 20 days as of right under Court Rule 15(a) and thus preserved the Rule 12(h) defense. | Court: No waiver — amendment within 20 days preserved PJ defense. |
| Specific personal jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1)–(3) | Oak Ridge’s sale of the truck into the secondary market (through dealers with multistate reach) made it foreseeable the truck could reach Delaware; website/dealer presence supports jurisdiction. | Oak Ridge had no contacts, business, property, employees, solicitation, or revenue in Delaware; mere possibility a sold truck eventually appears in Delaware is insufficient. | Court: Specific jurisdiction not satisfied. |
| Dual jurisdiction / § 3104(c)(4) (persistent course of conduct) | Plaintiff argues a dual‑jurisdiction theory: Oak Ridge’s sale into multistate distribution could show intent to serve Delaware market. | Oak Ridge did not regularly do or solicit business in Delaware or derive Delaware revenue; one isolated sale does not establish a persistent course of conduct. | Court: Dual jurisdiction not met; conduct insufficiently directed to Delaware. |
| Constitutional due process (minimum contacts & fairness) | Foreseeability that the truck could travel to Delaware supports minimum contacts; Delaware has interest in adjudicating injuries occurring in the State. | Oak Ridge did not purposefully avail itself of Delaware laws; litigating in Delaware would be unduly burdensome and unfair given lack of ties and uncertain role in alleged modification. | Court: Due process bars jurisdiction — no purposeful availment; exercising jurisdiction would be unfair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hornberger Mgmt. Co. v. Haws & Tingle Gen. Contractors, Inc., 768 A.2d 983 (Del. Super. 2000) (defense of personal jurisdiction may be waived by inconsistent conduct).
- Plummer v. Sherman, 861 A.2d 1238 (Del. 2004) (answer amended within 20 days may preserve Rule 12(h) defenses).
- LaNuova D & B, S.p.A. v. Bowe Co., Inc., 513 A.2d 764 (Del. 1986) (discussion of dual jurisdiction under Delaware long‑arm statute).
- Boone v. Oy Partek Ab, 724 A.2d 1150 (Del. Super. 1997) (dual jurisdiction satisfied where defendant solicited business and derived substantial Delaware revenue).
- Fischer v. Hilton, 549 F. Supp. 389 (D. Del. 1982) (single sale to a buyer whose use later caused injury in forum state insufficient for jurisdiction).
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability that a product may reach forum is not alone sufficient for personal jurisdiction).
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and due process standard for personal jurisdiction).