
In L.W. v. Audi AG, 108 Cal. App. 5th 95, the Court of Appeal of California (Court of Appeal) recently held that a foreign manufacturer can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California state courts. In L.W., a minor child suffered injuries when an Audi Q7 allegedly malfunctioned and surged forward, pinning the child against a garage wall. The plaintiffs brought suit against Audi AG (Audi Germany) and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. doing business as Audi of America (Audi America). Audi Germany designed, manufactured and then sold the Audi Q7 to Audi America. Audi America imported the car into the United States and distributed the car to the California dealership.
Audi Germany specially appeared and filed a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Audi Germany argued that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not conduct activities in California and did not directly send its product to the state. In addition, it argued that Audi America had complete and exclusive decision-making authority over the marketing and sale of Audis in California. Further, Audi Germany asserted that specific jurisdiction does not exist in a products liability case unless a defendant, itself, conducts relevant activities in the forum state. “In other words, Audi [Germany] asserted that California could never exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer (such as Audi) when that manufacturer relies on a separate entity (a national distributor such as [Audi America]) to distribute, market, and sell its products in that state.” In response, the plaintiffs argued that the court could assert specific jurisdiction over Audi Germany because Audi Germany systematically served the California market through a separate entity within its corporate structure, Audi America.
California’s Court of Appeal begun its decision with a discussion of the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction arising from World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286 [62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559] (World-Wide Volkswagen). There, the United States Supreme Court explained: “[I]f the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others.”
Since World-Wide Volkswagen established the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction, there has been no established framework for how to apply the theory. The seminal plurality decision on the stream-of-commerce theory, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102 [94 L. Ed. 2d 92, 107 S. Ct. 1026], resulted in three competing opinions, none of which garnered a majority to establish it as the proper standard for exercising personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer.
The first standard, from Justice Brennan, argued that personal jurisdiction under a stream-of-commerce theory should exist “[a]s long as a participant ... is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State.” The second, stricter standard (sometimes referred to as the stream-of-commerce plus approach), outlined by Justice O’Connor, required “[a]dditional conduct of the defendant [indicating] an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State.” The third standard, from Justice Stevens, found that “the volume, the value, and the hazardous character” of the product affects the determination.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over Audi Germany under any of the three approaches to the stream of commerce theory. The court found that Audi Germany “deliberately and systematically (albeit indirectly)” served the California market through a “regular flow” of vehicles from Audi Germany to Audi America and from Audi America to dealerships across the United States, including California. This case is important because it supports a finding of personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer that sells its products to an American distributor, particularly when that distributor is related to the foreign manufacturer.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- California
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- New York
- Evidence
- Condemnation
- Minnesota
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Warning
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- Arkansas
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Product Liability
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- California
- New York
- Construction Defects
- Inverse Condemnation
- Product Liability
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Condemnation
- Evidence
- Malfunction Theory
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- Experts
- Subro Sessions
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Experts – Daubert
- Rhode Island
- Contracts
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Negligence
- Landlord-Tenant
- Civil Procedure
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Experts - Reliability
- Certificate of Merit
- Amazon-eBay
- Louisiana
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Experts – Qualifications
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Indiana
- Sutton Doctrine
- Arizona
- West Virginia
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Connecticut
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- Limitation of Liability
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Apportionment
- Exculpatory Clause
- Expert Qualifications
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Amazon
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Burden of Proof
- Lithium-ion battery
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Additional Insured
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Food and Beverage
- Jury Instructions
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Montreal Convention
- Medical Benefits
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013