September 7, 2018
Recently, in Roberts v. Crabtree RV Ctr., Inc., the Court (Calmer, J.) granted the defendant Crabtree RV Center Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s Complaint on the ground that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction. Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-17-6030768-S, 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 989 (May 17, 2018).
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant put forth several arguments. First, it asserted that it is a foreign corporation and the case arose exclusively from the sale of a recreational vehicle (RV) outside of the state of Connecticut. Secondly, Defendant asserted that it did not make any contract with Plaintiff in Connecticut and that the mere presence of its website was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Lastly, Defendant argued that to impose jurisdiction over it would be in violation of constitutional due process.
Pursuant to Connecticut law, jurisdiction may be exercised over a foreign corporation “only if the defendant’s interstate activities meet the requirements both of [the state’s longarm] statute and of the due process clause of the federal constitution.” Thomaston v. Chemical Bank, 234 Conn. 281, 285-86 (1995). In the above-cited case, the Connecticut Supreme Court explained the longarm statute (now §33-939(f)(2)) to mean that “a plaintiff’s cause of action aris[es] . . . out of. . .business solicited in this state if, at the time of the defendant engaged in solicitation in Connecticut, it was reasonably foreseeable that, as a result of that solicitation, the defendant could be sued in Connecticut by a solicited person[.]” Id. at 296.
The evidence indicated that Defendant has been in business in Arkansas since 1950 and has never solicited business in the state of Connecticut. While Defendant’s website allowed out of state customers to purchase some parts and accessories, no one could purchase an RV on the website. Similarly, Plaintiff went to Arkansas to purchase his RV. In addition, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendant solicited any business from other Connecticut residents.
The Court noted that there is no appellate authority addressing the issue of whether a foreign corporation’s website and Internet presence satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of §33-939(f)(2). However, lower courts have held that “merely placing information on the Internet is not sufficient by itself to [subject] that person to personal jurisdiction in each [s]state in which the information is accessed . . . Something more than posting and accessibility is needed to indicated that the [defendant] purposefully (albeit electronically) directed [its] activity in a substantial way to the forum state.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) See Rios v. Fergusan, 51 Conn. Sup., 212, 221 (2008); Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc., 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1249.
Based on the evidence presented, the Court concluded that it was not reasonably foreseeable the Defendant could be sued in Connecticut as the Defendant did not sell RVs on its website and did not make any sales to Connecticut residents.
Next, the Court analyzed whether Defendant had sufficient contact with the state of Connecticut under the constitutional minimum contacts analysis, ultimately concluding that it did not. Defendant did not have any offices or employees in Connecticut and did not advertise or otherwise solicit business in Connecticut; its website was not specifically directed at Connecticut residents; the contract was negotiated and effectuated in Arkansas; and delivery of the RV was made in Oklahoma. As such, the Court concluded that Defendant had insufficient contact with the state of Connecticut and was not subject to personal jurisdiction in this state.
In today’s Internet age, almost every major company has an Internet presence and a Website that it accessible to potential customers anywhere in the country and the world.. In the Roberts decision, a lower court found that mere Internet presence and a Website were insufficient to haul a foreign corporation into the Connecticut courts, unless it purposely directed its activities in Connecticut in a substantial way or solicited business from Connecticut customers, and it was reasonably foreseeable that it could be subject to litigation in this state.
If you are a foreign corporation being sued in Connecticut, please consult McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia attorneys to discuss issues of jurisdiction and to formulate a specifically tailored defense plan to suit your company’s needs.