Satisfying due process in obtaining jurisdiction over the foreign component part manufacturer.

• Author: Doan, Jennifer Haltom

This article originally appeared in the September 2008 Product Liability Committee Newsletter.

When a product has allegedly caused property damage or personal injury, the injured party may initiate legal action against multiple defendants responsible for the manufacture of the finished product and its component parts. Often only the easily identifiable, finished product manufacturer is sued. Where the alleged defect relates to a foreign-manufactured component, however, the finished product manufacturer may want to join the foreign component manufacturer in the litigation.

U.S. sales result in billions of dollars in profits annually to foreign component part manufacturers. Despite such obvious commercial benefit from U.S. markets, can these manufacturers be joined in litigation in U.S. courts to defend their products and, potentially, bear responsibility for damages? The answer depends not only upon the conduct of the foreign manufacturer, but also where the litigation is pending.

Both state and federal rules of civil procedure allow a defendant-manufacturer to bring in third parties, such as a foreign component part manufacturer, that may be liable for the plaintiff's claims of product defect and damages. (38) For a state or federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer, the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution must be satisfied. A fundamental requirement of the Due Process Clause is that the foreign manufacturer must have certain "minimum contacts" with the forum state. What must be shown is some act, direct or indirect, by the foreign manufacturer in which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of transacting business in the forum and, therefore, receives the benefit and protection of its laws. (39)

The foreign component part manufacturer may have "minimum contacts" with the forum state under a "general jurisdiction" analysis. In this situation, the foreign manufacturer's contacts with the forum need not be related to the allegedly defective product, but may be established through "continuous and systematic contacts" with the forum. (40) For example, the foreign manufacturer may have a presence in the forum via its sales force, distribution channels, marketing efforts, or other "continuous and systematic" activities. An interactive website through which the foreign manufacturer enters into sales contracts in the forum may provide the conduct...