State v. McShane, 560 S.W.3d 888

Background

PPG, a Pennsylvania corporation, was sued in Missouri state court for negligent misrepresentation based on statements on PPG’s public website listing Finishing Dynamics as an "approved extrusion applicator."
Hilboldt (plaintiff) alleged it relied on PPG’s website in Missouri, entered a contract with Finishing Dynamics, and suffered harm in Missouri.
PPG moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the circuit court denied the motion. PPG sought a writ of prohibition from the Missouri Supreme Court.
The central jurisdictional question: whether PPG’s passive, non-targeted website statements constitute a "tortious act within the state" under Missouri’s long-arm statute (section 506.500.1(3)) and support specific jurisdiction.
The court emphasized the difference between directed extraterritorial communications (which can support jurisdiction) and broadly accessible, untargeted online postings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PPG committed a "tortious act within the state" under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500.1(3)	PPG’s online misrepresentations were received, relied upon, and caused injury in Missouri, so the tort occurred in Missouri	PPG’s website was passive and not aimed at Missouri; no direct communications or solicitation to Missouri occurred	No – the passive, non-targeted website did not constitute a tortious act within Missouri
Whether Missouri has specific personal jurisdiction over PPG	The alleged harm in Missouri creates the necessary connection between the forum and the controversy	Plaintiff’s unilateral acts and third-party transactions cannot supply defendant contacts; passive web access is insufficient	No – lacking the required affiliation between the forum and defendant’s conduct
Whether extraterritorial consequences alone satisfy the long-arm statute	Consequences felt in Missouri from extraterritorial statements are enough under precedent like Bryant	The consequences are too attenuated where defendant did not send or target communications to Missouri	No – mere accessibility of a website nationwide is insufficient; directed communications are required
Whether additional discovery on contacts should proceed now	Plaintiff requested discovery if initial contacts were insufficient	Relief sought by PPG was limited to dismissal; discovery request is not before this Court in the writ proceeding	Not addressed substantively; Court limited review to the jurisdictional dismissal issue

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Bayer Corp. v. Moriarty, 536 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. banc 2017) (explaining specific vs. general jurisdiction and plaintiff’s burden on contacts)
State ex rel. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Dolan, 512 S.W.3d 41 (Mo. banc 2017) (prohibition proper when personal jurisdiction is lacking)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (limits of due process protect liberty of nonresident defendant; plaintiff bears burden to show defendant’s forum contacts)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (jurisdictional limits tied to activities or occurrences in the forum)
Andra v. Left Gate Prop. Holding, Inc., 453 S.W.3d 216 (Mo. banc 2015) (Missouri’s two-prong long-arm and due process test)
Bryant v. Smith Interior Design Grp., Inc., 310 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. banc 2010) (directed fraudulent communications into Missouri can constitute a tortious act in the state)
Murphy v. Erwin-Wasey, Inc., 460 F.2d 661 (1st Cir. 1972) (defendant who knowingly sends false statements into a state may be treated as acting within that state)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction generally limited to place of incorporation or principal place of business)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (unilateral activity of third parties cannot establish defendant’s contacts)
Good World Deals, LLC v. Gallagher, 554 S.W.3d 905 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (distinguishing cases where defendant sent targeted communications into Missouri)

Conclusion: The Missouri Supreme Court held the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over PPG because PPG’s passive, non-targeted website conduct did not constitute a tortious act within Missouri under the long-arm statute; the writ of prohibition was made permanent and the claim against PPG must be dismissed.