Montana District Court applies Ford Motor Company’s ‘relative to’ test to determine specific personal jurisdiction over foreign helicopter manufacturer – Aviation

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

A federal district court in Montana has found that contact with the forum state merely “relating to” the cause of action is sufficient to justify the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign helicopter manufacturer. Thomas Duffy died when the K-Max helicopter he was piloting on an aerial firefighting mission crashed in Oregon. Mr. Duffy’s estate and his employer, Central Copters, Inc., filed a product liability suit against the helicopter maker, alleging the crash was caused by a faulty rotor flap.

Kaman requested the dismissal of the claim for lack of personal jurisdiction in Montana. The crux of Kaman’s argument was that none of his forum contacts were causally connected to the plaintiffs’ claims. In support, she claimed the company did not sell the crashed helicopter to Central Copters. Instead, Central Copters purchased the downed helicopter from the US State Department in 2007. Additionally, Central Copters is Kaman’s only customer in Montana, and its sales to Central Copters represent only 1% of all global sales of K-Max.

Since 1997, however, Kaman’s marketing manager has traveled to Montana several times to promote K-Max helicopter models to Central Copters and otherwise to assist Central Copters in purchasing K-Max helicopters from third. Kaman has sent technicians to Montana on several occasions to assist and train Central Copters personnel regarding K-Max inspections and service. Central Helicopters is one of sixteen K-Max operators in the world. As for the crashed helicopter, although Kaman did not sell it to Central Copters, Kaman flew it to Montana for Central Copters in exchange for US$50,000.

Citing the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026 (2021), the district court explained that a “causal only” approach to specific personal jurisdiction is not supported by judicial precedent. Instead, due process is satisfied when an action arises out of or relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently related to Kaman’s contact with Montana, even though, unlike
Ford, the accident occurred outside the State of the forum. Accordingly, the court dismissed Kaman’s motion.

Duffy versus Kaman Aerospace Corporation, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 42735 (D. Mont. March 10, 2022).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Transportation from the United States

Foley Automotive Report

Foley & Lardner

This report helps automotive suppliers inform their legal and operational decisions to help them address challenges and seize opportunities.

SASH is back

Winston & Strawn LLP

Policymakers in Washington have again turned their attention to the US-flagged fleet and the US Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point following new allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment…

Navigating the Perils of the General Average

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff

Sealift supply teams and ship owners would do well to pay close attention to the effects of recent notable maritime perils that have triggered general average claims.

Comments are closed.