988 N.E.2d 272
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sebring, an Indiana employee, was injured by a dust collector component manufactured by NCI, a Texas corporation.
- NCI supplied a screw conveyor to Donaldson, a Delaware/Kentucky company; Donaldson directed shipment to OmniSource, Fort Wayne, Indiana (FOB origin, NCI’s Texas facility).
- NCI had no Indiana employees, licenses, or ongoing Indiana relationships; shipments to Indiana were rare and largely initiated by Donaldson.
- NCI’s involvement occurred in Texas; the decision to ship to Indiana was Donaldson’s unilateral choice to expedite delivery.
- Sebring sued NCI in Indiana; trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Sebring appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana has specific jurisdiction over NCI. | Sebring argues NCI’s Texas actions purposefully availed Indiana. | NCI asserts no Indiana conduct; shipment was initiated by Donaldson; no contact with Indiana. | No specific jurisdiction; contacts insufficient. |
| Was NCI subject to general jurisdiction in Indiana? | Not asserted; Sebring concedes no general jurisdiction. | NCI lacks continuous and systematic contacts. | General jurisdiction not present. |
| Does North Texas Steel justify jurisdiction over NCI? | Sebring relies on NTS to establish jurisdiction through manufacturing/shipping for Indiana. | NCI distinguishes NTS; manufacturing/shipping largely by Donaldson; minimal NCI contact. | Not sufficiently analogous; NCI not subject to jurisdiction under NTS. |
| Does J. McIntyre/McIntyre Nicastro framework support jurisdiction here? | Something more than mere stream-of-commerce is present due to design/manufacture for Indiana. | No, NCI’s knowledge alone is insufficient; facts show no something more by NCI. | No jurisdiction under McIntyre/Nicastro; insufficient purposeful availment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for due process)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (no jurisdiction without foreseeable sale and propagation into forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 1985) (purposeful availment and fair play/justice analysis)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court 1987) (something more than mere placement into stream of commerce)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (Supreme Court 2011) (division on jurisdictional approach; plurality and concurrences)
- North Texas Steel Co., Inc. v. RR Donnelley & Sons Co., 679 N.E.2d 513 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (manufacture and shipment to Indiana under anticipated flow of commerce)
- LinkAmerica Corp. v. Albert, 857 N.E.2d 961 (Ind.2006) (post-Amendment framework; analyses jurisdiction under Due Process)
- Anthem Ins. Co. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 730 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind.2000) (burden-shifting framework for proving lack of jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (stream-of-commerce limits on jurisdiction)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (Supreme Court 1977) (jurisdictional analysis tied to forum’s relationship to the case)