Tackett v. Duncan
334 P.3d 920
Mont.2014Background
- Plaintiff Brian Tackett (Montana resident) wired $7,543.02 from a Montana bank to Tutwiler (Florida public adjuster) as payment for adjusting fees related to a Florida house fire claim handled by Citizens Property Insurance (Florida).
- Citizens issued a $67,930.22 settlement check in Florida payable to Grayson Tackett and Holly Duncan (Florida); Tutwiler obtained Duncan’s endorsement and mailed the endorsed check to Grayson in Kentucky.
- Duncan’s Florida attorney, Stephen Stanley, sent a letter to Citizens alleging Duncan’s endorsement was procured by fraud and requested stop payment; Citizens stopped payment in Florida.
- Brian sued in Montana, alleging defendants conspired to induce his wire transfer by false pretenses and then stopped payment on the insurance proceeds, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court converted the motions to summary judgment, allowed limited discovery, and granted summary judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction because the events occurred in Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montana district court has specific personal jurisdiction under M. R. Civ. P. 4(b)(1)(B) (tort accrual in Montana) | Tackett: tort accrued in Montana because his monetary loss (wire from Montana) occurred here | Defendants: all substantial conduct occurred outside Montana (Florida/Kentucky); mere injury in Montana insufficient | Court: No specific jurisdiction; accrual occurred where tortious acts and contacts took place (not Montana) |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (specific-jurisdiction requires defendant’s own contacts with forum; plaintiff’s contacts alone insufficient)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be essentially at home in forum)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (limits of state adjudicative authority and foreseeability in jurisdiction analysis)
- Bi-Lo Foods, Inc. v. Alpine Bank, 287 Mont. 367 (1998) (tort accrues where defendant’s acts giving rise to claim occurred, not where injury felt)
- Bird v. Hiller, 270 Mont. 467 (1995) (interstate communications alone do not establish accrual in forum where tortious acts occurred elsewhere)
- Threlkeld v. Colo., 303 Mont. 432 (2000) (fraud/misrepresentation claims tied to services performed outside Montana do not accrue in Montana)
- Cimmaron Corp. v. Smith, 315 Mont. 1 (2003) (mere detrimental effect in Montana insufficient; accrual occurs where wrongful possession/misappropriation occurred)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (jurisdictional contacts must be defendant-focused and arise from purposeful availment)