Close up of Male lawyer or judge hand's striking the gavel on sounding block, working with Law books, report the case on table in modern office, Law and justice concept

Connecticut Court Determines it Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Talcum Powder Defendant

Court:  Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Bridgeport at Bridgeport

Connecticut resident Elaine Adelia Hickey (decedent) contracted mesothelioma alleging exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing talcum products throughout her life. Decedent alleged she personally used talcum products on herself and her children from the 1950s to the 1970s and was also exposed to asbestos from her father’s work as an automobile mechanic from the 1970s to the 2000s. Decedent’s surviving spouse, Jacob Russell Herman Sr. (plaintiff), as executor of Decedent’s estate, brought suit against a number of personal product and automobile product manufacturers, including defendant Intercos.

As a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, Intercos moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claim based on lack of personal jurisdiction. “In deciding a jurisdictional question raised by a motion to dismiss, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.” Herman v Am. Honda Motor, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2145, at *6-7 [Super Ct Oct. 18, 2024, No. FBT CV236124687]. Ordinarily, the defendant has the burden to disprove personal jurisdiction, however if the defendant is a foreign limited liability company or corporation, as Intercos was here, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. See Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505, 515 (2007). In evaluating the issue of personal jurisdiction, a court must decide: (1) whether the applicable state long-arm statute authorizes the assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant, and if so (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would violate constitutional principles of due process.  See Cogswell, 282 Conn. at 514-15; Herman v Am. Honda Motor, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2145, at *8-9. 

Intercos primarily relied on the argument that exercise of jurisdiction by Connecticut would be a violation of constitutional principles. The court agreed, and held “[T]he paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are absent as to Intercos because it is not incorporated in Connecticut or principally placed in said state for business.” Moreover, plaintiff failed to allege Intercos had any offices or employees in the State of Connecticut. Instead, he merely made the conclusory allegation that the court has general jurisdiction over all defendants based on the Connecticut business registration statute and over those defendants that have obtained a certificate of authority to transact business in Connecticut.

Turning to the issue of specific jurisdiction, the court stated “[Specific jurisdiction] covers defendants less intimately connected with a [s]tate, but only as to a narrower class of claims. The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name ‘purposeful availment.’ . . . The defendant . . . must take some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum [s]tate. . . . The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not random, isolated, or fortuitous. . . . They must show that the defendant deliberately reached out beyond its home—by, for example, exploi[ting] a market in the forum [s]tate or entering a contractual relationship centered there. . . . Yet even then—because the defendant is not ‘at home’—the forum [s]tate may exercise jurisdiction in only certain cases.”

Plaintiff argued Intercos purposedly availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Connecticut when it placed its asbestos-containing talc into the stream of commerce. Moreover, given the fact that Intercos supplied talc to a substantial number of other personal care product brands and companies, it “should have anticipated litigation ensuring from its failure to warn its customers or global consumers about the hazards associated with asbestos-containing talc.” Intercos’ corporate representative testified that Intercos designs and manufactures certain cosmetic products and warehouses finished products in the State of New York; (2) Intercos’ customers are responsible for picking up the product they purchase from Intercos’ New York warehouse; (3) Intercos’ customers pay the freight charges and the risk of loss transfers to the customer when the customer picks up the product from Intercos’ New York warehouse; (4) after the customer takes possession of the product, Intercos does not control where, when, or how the products are disseminated; (5) Intercos has no customers or distributors based in Connecticut; (6) Intercos does not directly ship products to Connecticut or otherwise intentionally put its products into the stream of commerce in Connecticut; (7) Intercos has never directed any advertising, marketing, or promotion to Connecticut or its residents; (8) Intercos has never had any subsidiaries or corporately related companies in Connecticut; and (9) Intercos has never bought or sold talc in Connecticut. Based on the corporate testimony, the court disagreedwith plaintiff’s argument, and held plaintiff failed to meet his burden to demonstrate purposeful availment. It held “A nonresident manufacturer’s awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep its products into Connecticut, alone, is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction.” 

The court found “the relationship must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State.” In the present case, it held “in the absence of voluntary efforts by Intercos to target the Connecticut market, it is not sufficient…for plaintiff to assert the decedent was a resident of Connecticut; used Intercos’ alleged asbestos-containing talc products in Connecticut and was, thus, injured in Connecticut; or that she was diagnosed with Mesothelioma in Connecticut.” Moreover, “mere purchases from Connecticut-based vendors, without more, cannot be said to constitute a deliberate effort by a product manufacturer to serve, directly or indirectly, the market of said forum…”  See Colon v. Rose Assocs., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-19-6081720-S, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2015 (July 11, 2019, Stewart, J.). Accordingly, the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Intercos and granted its motion to dismiss.

Read the full decision here