State v. Atlantic Richfield Company

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that a manufacturer or supplier that places fungible products into a national distribution system with the expectation that they will reach Vermont may be subject to specific personal jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce doctrine. The case arose from Vermont’s claims that MTBE-containing gasoline contaminated the state’s surface water and groundwater.

Holdings

1. A state may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant that purposefully places fungible products into a national distribution system with the expectation that the products will reach and be purchased by consumers in the forum state, when the litigation arises from injuries allegedly caused by those products.
2. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Walden v. Fiore did not eliminate or materially alter the existing stream-of-commerce doctrine and did not preclude jurisdiction based on a defendant's own purposeful conduct in a nationwide distribution system.
3. TPRI failed to present a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction in Vermont would be unreasonable after the State established purposeful minimum contacts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vermont could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over TPRI under the Due Process Clause based on TPRI's placement of MTBE and MTBE-containing gasoline into a national distribution system that regularly and foreseeably brought the products into Vermont.
2. Whether TPRI's contacts with Vermont were attributable only to unilateral conduct by third parties and therefore insufficient for personal jurisdiction under J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Walden v. Fiore.
3. Whether exercising personal jurisdiction over TPRI would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Disposition

affirmed