Case No. 19-368 | Mont.
October 7, 2020
Preview by Amy Orlov, Online Editor
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana concerns fundamental questions of personal jurisdiction related to the specific jurisdiction for a lawsuit in which a corporation is the defendant. Not surprisingly, Ford Motor Co. stems from an incident involving malfunctioning car parts, similar to other prominent personal jurisdiction cases such as World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 277 (1980), and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011). Since an automobile can be driven throughout the country and contains many pieces that are manufactured by different companies in different parts of the world, motor vehicle malfunctions can often result in complex personal jurisdiction issues. Ford Motor Co. is no exception.
In this case, Markkaya Jean Gullett, a Montana resident, was driving a Ford Explorer on a Montana highway when she lost control of the vehicle and fatally crashed into a ditch. The cause of the crash was a defect in the tire, resulting from a thread separating. The personal representative of Gullett’s estate sued Ford Motor Company in Montana for claims including design defect, failure to warn, and negligence. This case is consolidated with Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, which arises in Minnesota but involves similar facts and presents the same legal question about the strength of the casual connection required to establish specific jurisdiction.”
Ford Motor Company is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan. The specific Ford Explorer that Gullett drove was assembled in Kentucky and initially sold to a dealer in Washington. Following the initial sale, the dealership sold the Explorer to an Oregon resident who later sold it to an individual who brought it to Montana. At no point was Ford Motor Company involved in directly selling or producing the individual vehicle in Montana. However, Ford does sell thousands of vehicles, including the make and model of the car involved in the accident, in the state of Montana. The respondents emphasize this point as justification for holding Ford subject to personal jurisdiction in this case. See Brief for Petitioners at 4–7, 15–16, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Ct., 19-368 (U.S. filed Mar. 30, 2020).
Ford Motor Company moved to dismiss the claim for lack of both general and specific jurisdiction. Ford argued that the plaintiff’s claims do not “arise out of or relate to” the corporation’s activities within the state under Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472–73. Brief for Petitioners at 13–15, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Ct., No. 19-368 (U.S. filed Feb 28, 2020) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472–473). The trial court denied Ford’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was a substantial connection between Ford and the forum state. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed this finding, explaining that Ford had availed itself to the privileges of doing business in the state of Montana by advertising and selling its vehicles and automobile parts within the state.
As the case is set for oral argument at the Supreme Court, numerous academics, business associations, and chambers of commerce have voiced their opinions through amicus briefs. Several civil procedure professors have written in support of the respondents, arguing that a decision in favor of the petitioners would result in an unfair forum-shopping advantage for defendant corporations. See Brief of Amicus Curiae Civil Procedure Professors in Support of Respondents at 1, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Ct., No. 19-368 (U.S. filed Apr. 2, 2020). However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Alliance for Automotive Innovation have filed amici briefs in favor of Ford. They argue that a ruling in favor of the respondents would expose automotive manufacturers that develop easily movable products to nationwide specific jurisdiction on the basis of generalized connections they share with each and every state. See Brief for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, et al. in Support of Petitioner at 4, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Ct., No. 19-368 (U.S. filed Mar. 6, 2020).
Ford Motor Co. could have large consequences for personal jurisdiction law and corporate forum decision making. It would not be surprising for this case to show up in civil procedure textbooks as the most recent decision iterating specific jurisdiction principles.