State v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 142 A.3d 215

Background

Vermont sued 29 oil/chemical companies, including Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc. (TPRI), alleging MTBE in gasoline contaminated Vermont surface and groundwater and seeking remediation, injunctive relief, and damages.
TPRI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting an affidavit that it had no offices, agents, or direct sales in Vermont and minimal revenue from Vermont.
The State opposed with an expert affidavit explaining gasoline is fungible and commingled in interstate pipelines (including the Colonial Pipeline), and that suppliers to the East Coast market reasonably should expect their MTBE-containing gasoline to reach New England and Vermont.
The superior court denied TPRI’s motion, finding TPRI supplied MTBE/gasoline into a national distribution system that included Vermont and thus had sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction.
On interlocutory appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, applying the stream-of-commerce doctrine (World-Wide Volkswagen) and concluding the State made a prima facie showing of purposeful direction into Vermont via the national distribution system.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vermont has specific personal jurisdiction over TPRI based on stream-of-commerce contacts	State: TPRI placed fungible MTBE/gasoline into a national distribution system (East Coast) with the expectation it would reach Vermont	TPRI: No minimum contacts with Vermont; it did not market, sell, or target Vermont and cannot be haled in on third-party/unilateral conduct	Held: Affirmed. Specific jurisdiction exists where defendant delivers products into an interstate distribution system with expectation they will be purchased in the forum (World-Wide Volkswagen application)
Whether recent Supreme Court decisions (McIntyre, Walden) bar jurisdiction here	State: McIntyre/Walden do not change core World-Wide Volkswagen stream-of-commerce rule permitting jurisdiction when defendant expects products to reach forum via national distribution	TPRI: McIntyre and Walden limit stream-of-commerce; foreseeability or third-party actions alone cannot establish jurisdiction	Held: Court rejects TPRI’s reading; McIntyre did not alter controlling precedent and Walden is inapposite; stream-of-commerce principle remains controlling
Whether the State was entitled to jurisdictional discovery	State: Requested discovery to develop proof of distribution/contacts	TPRI: Discovery unnecessary because State failed to make prima facie showing of jurisdiction	Held: Court accepted State’s affidavits as sufficient at prima facie stage and denied TPRI’s attack on discovery request as premature
Whether asserting jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice	State: Vermont has strong interest in protecting its waters and in convenient relief; efficiency and policy favor adjudication	TPRI: Litigating in Vermont is unduly burdensome given its Texas headquarters and lack of in-state presence	Held: Court finds TPRI failed to make compelling showing that jurisdiction would be unreasonable; reasonableness factors favor Vermont adjudication

Key Cases Cited

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes "minimum contacts" due process test)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (articulates stream-of-commerce foreseeability principle for specific jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors for specific jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (competing Supreme Court views on scope of stream-of-commerce doctrine)
J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (fractured opinion; did not change core stream-of-commerce framework)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (contacts must arise from defendant’s own forum-directed conduct)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (unilateral third-party activity cannot by itself create forum contacts)