Tarkett USA, Inc. v. MAPEI Corporation
6:24-cv-03102
| W.D. Mo. | Jun 26, 2025Background
- Tarkett USA sued MAPEI Corp. for damages following the failed installation of flooring at Fort Leonard Wood Hospital, where MAPEI supplied adhesive tape purchased from Berry Global Group.
- MAPEI filed a third-party complaint against Berry, seeking contribution and indemnity for any damages it might owe to Tarkett, alleging Berry’s tape caused the defects.
- Berry moved to dismiss MAPEI’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, asserting it had no direct contact with Missouri and that the tape was custom made for a different customer.
- MAPEI argued Berry’s products are sold nationwide, including in Missouri, through various distribution channels and big box retailers, and that Berry should have anticipated litigation in Missouri if its products caused harm there.
- The court considered whether Berry purposefully availed itself of the Missouri market and whether MAPEI’s allegations were sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction | Berry placed products into Missouri’s stream of commerce and should anticipate litigation there | Berry had no direct contacts with Missouri and did not purposefully avail itself | Court found minimum contacts, jurisdiction proper |
| Failure to State a Claim | Sufficient factual allegations to state all claims | Facts support dismissal; no liability shown on face of pleadings | Allegations sufficient, motion to dismiss denied |
| Applicability of Warranties | Berry made representations applicable to the project | Product was custom-made for another customer, no relevant warranties | Factual dispute, not grounds for dismissal |
| Scope of Indemnity | Berry liable to indemnify MAPEI if found liable to Tarkett | No contract with Tarkett or FSI, not responsible for their damages | Not for dismissal stage; allegations sufficient to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM–Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., 646 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (Plaintiff bears the burden to establish personal jurisdiction; minimum contacts analysis)
- Clune v. Alimak AB, 233 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 2000) (Stream of commerce plus distribution network can establish jurisdiction)
- Fusco v. Xerox Corp., 676 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1982) (Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate in unusual cases where relief is inconceivable)