One would be hard-pressed to find an area of life COVID-19 has not upended. Court proceedings are no different. While most routine legal proceedings can be conducted virtually, there are some proceedings so sacred that physical presence will probably always be required. U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments are such sacred proceedings. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court is postponing oral arguments on Ford’s jurisdictional challenges – originally scheduled for April 27 – due to COVID-19. This means we won’t receive a decision until the Fall.

As a reminder, Ford is challenging the Montana and Minnesota Supreme Court’s findings that it is fair and reasonable for Ford to defend product liability suits occurring in their States. In both of these cases, the Plaintiffs were injured by defects in Ford’s cars and filed their suits in the state where the accidents occurred. The cars at issue were manufactured, designed, and originally sold outside the forum state. Ford did not dispute the quality and quantity of its contacts with those states. Instead, Ford argued that since the Plaintiffs’ cars were not purchased brand new in those states, then Ford’s in-state contacts did not “cause” Plaintiffs’ claims. Both the Montana and Minnesota Supreme Courts rejected Ford’s “causation” argument.

Since our last update on this case, many entities have filed Amicus Curiae briefs against Ford’s argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirty-nine state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed an excellent brief explaining how Ford’s proposed proximate cause standard would restrict “States’ strong sovereign and constitutional interests in ensuring that their own courts remain open to citizens injured within their borders.” However, the federal government filed an amicus brief siding with Ford. In a rare decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected bids from the States as well as from the federal government to participate in oral argument.

In addition, the Missouri Supreme Court recently became the third state supreme court to reject a manufacturer’s argument that the vehicle must be originally purchased in the state where it causes injury. On March 17, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s finding of jurisdiction over Suzuki Motor Corporation for a car accident in Missouri that left two Missouri residents severely burned.

Beasley Allen lawyers Graham Esdale and Stephanie Monplaisir were the lawyers on this case, titled State ex rel. Suzuki Moroto Corporation, No. SC 98129. They conducted jurisdictional discovery and filed extensive briefing for two years before receiving this favorable ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court. If you need more information, contact Stephanie Monplaisir at 800-898-2034.

This story appears in the May 2020 edition of The Jere Beasley Report. Visit the Report online to subscribe or download a digital copy of the full Report.

Jere Beasley

Jere Beasley, the founding member of Beasley Allen Law Firm, has practiced law as an advocate for victims of wrongdoing since 1962. He was the lead Beasley Allen attorney in the record $11.9 billion award against ExxonMobil Corp. on behalf of the state of Alabama.


We're here to help!

We live by our creed of “helping those who need it most” and have helped thousands of clients get the justice they desperately needed and deserved. If you feel you have a case or just have questions please contact us for a free consultation. There is no risk and no fees unless we win for you.

Fields marked * may be required for submission.

Best firm by far

Our case was handled with the utmost integrity and professionalism. If I could give them 10 stars, I would. This is the best legal firm I have ever dealt with by far.

—Pat