The United States Supreme Court has continuously held up that plaintiffs are
not at liberty to bring a suit to wherever they choose, (see Joseph Glannon, Civ.
Proc.: Ex. and Exp’s. 3 (Wolters Kluwer L. & Bus. Et al. eds., 7th ed. 2013). The Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enforces limitations on the power of
state courts to use personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil suits. (Id. at 27). It is
vital to recognize that even if it is permitted for a court to exercise personal
jurisdiction in a case, the court may still not have the power to summon the
defendant in front of it. This essay will point out the background of personal
jurisdiction and whether a California state court can exercise personal jurisdiction
over a Texas life insurance company in adherence with the Due Process Clause.
Background
Every single personal jurisdiction matter involves a two-step analysis: (1) The
court must ask whether there is a state statute that authorizes it to exercise
personal jurisdiction under the circumstances of the case; and (2) if there is, the
court must ask whether it would be constitutional under the due process clause to
do so. (Id. at 27). Since state legislatures can permit their court to employ personal
jurisdiction only to the limits of the Due Process Clause, (id.). at 28) emphasis will be
placed on how personal jurisdiction falls under the due process clause. The
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from “depriv[ing]
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (U.S. Const.
amend. XIV § 1). In numerous cases where a defendant does not reside in the state
bringing a suit, the only premises for exercising personal jurisdiction will be the
Minimum Contact Test that evolved in the Supreme Cour Case, International Shoe v.
Washington. (See Glannon, supra at 4). The Supreme Court confirmed that if a
person, or corporation, holds minimum contact with a state, it would be
constitutional for a person to return and defend a lawsuit in that state. Id. Although,
it depends on the “quality and nature” of the contacts within the state. (See Int’l
Shoe Co. v. Wa., 325 U.S. 310, 319 (1945). Having the understanding that personal
jurisdiction can only be enforced contingent on the “quality and nature” of
interaction with another state, leads to whether a California state court can exercise
personal jurisdiction over Sovereign in adherence with the Due Process Clause.
Personal Jurisdiction Applied to Keane v. Sovereign Ins. Co
A cause of action for breach of contract requires the proof of three basic
elements: (1) an enforceable promise was made; (2) the defendant’s performance
was due; and (3) the defendant failed to perform without excuse. (See Michel B.
Kelly, Inside Cont. L. 11 (Wolters Kluwer L. and Bus. et al. Eds., 1st ed. 2011). Mr.
Nance entered into a legally binding life insurance policy from Sovereign Insurance
Company and Mrs. Keane was not compensated under the contract. The California
state court may have the ability to constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction
over Sovereign’s non-payment.
Sovereign was executing affairs in California but were located in Texas. A
state’s long-arm statute can be construed narrowly to pertain to cases where
Sovereign has continuous monetary activities and lasting employees within the
state, or it might be depicted more broadly, to pertain to Sovereign entering a sole
business deal with Mr. Nance. (See Glannon supra, at 33). However, Subsection (a)
(6) of The Uniform Act specifically addresses claims arising out of insurance
contracts. Subsection (a)(6) particularly restricts jurisdiction to claims deriving from
contracts to ensure risks at hand in the state when an insurance contract is made.
Mr. Nance was not present in Texas when the insurance contract was made, or
when he died, therefore, this would not apply. (Id).
The Supreme Court has held that defendant must have “purposely avail[ed]
itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking
the benefits and protections of its laws.” (Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253
(1958)). Sovereign did orchestrate advertisements in California, but it is challenging
to reason that Sovereign profited from their sole California customer. For example,
in (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011), the
Supreme Court confirmed that a corporation is subject to avail in the state where it
is incorporated and the state of its principal (emphasis added) place of business.
(See Glannon, supra, at 6).
A case that resembles Mrs. Keane is Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).
Specifically, the court held the defendant at mercy of the personal jurisdiction of
California for a defamatory article written in Florida, since the article intended to be
circulated in California, the plaintiff lived there, and the plaintiff’s career was
centered there. (See Glannon, supra, at 8). A guideline for applying minimum
contact is if a defendant performs an act outside the state and knows the act will
cause harmful effects within the state, they may be constrained to minimum
contacts jurisdiction, therefore claims arising out of that act. Since Sovereign
decided against paying Mr. Nance’s policy, they had an unfavorable effect on Mrs.
Keane, who may depend on the life insurance policy.
Concisely, the California state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over
a Texas life insurance company in accordance with the Due Process Clause if Mrs.
Keane can demonstrate that Sovereign Life Insurance Co. caused a harmful effect on
her, due to her reliance on the life insurance payment. Each and every person, and
corporation, is accountable to God and will yield a report for every choice they have
made. It is stated in Numbers 30:2 that “A man who makes a vow to the Lord or
makes a pledge under oath must never break it. He must do exactly what he said he
would do.” (New Living Translation, 1996/2015, Number 30:2).
References
Glannon, J. W. (2023). Examples & Explanations for Civil Procedure (9th ed.) Aspen
Publishing. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://libertyonline.vitalsource.c
om/reader/books/9781543839340/epubcfi/6/10[%3Bvnd.vst.idref
%3Dnav_4]!/4/2
LexisNexis. (2023). 2023 Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Retrieved May 18, 2024,
from https://www.lexisnexis.com/supp/lawschool/resources/federal-rules-
of-civil-procedure.pdf
New Living Translation. (2015). Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published
1996)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
