ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> North Carolina Appellate Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Appellate Law

: North Carolina Appellate Blog

COA: No Personal Jurisdiction Over Korean Companies

By Sean E. Andrussier

ADVERTISEMENTS
Yesterday the NC Court of Appeals (span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"COA/span) held that the trial court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over two Korean companies. The case is a href="http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/080242-1.htm"Cambridge Homes of N.C. Ltd. span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"P'Ship/span v. Hyundai Construction, Inc./a It's an important personal jurisdiction case for those who produce component parts or compounds incorporated into products that are sold in NC.br /br /This products case arose from allegedly defective vinyl siding installed on homes that plaintiff constructed in NC. Personal jurisdiction was not contested by the company that provided and installed the siding (it's a NC company) or the company (a Korean company) that manufactured the siding and sold it to the installer. In short, this appeal wasn't about the manufacturer or installer of the siding.br /br /Instead, this appeal concerned two related Korean companies (we'll call them K-1 and K-2) that created and provided chemical compounds that the Korean manufacturer used to make the siding. Specifically, K-1 created resins and sold them to K-2; K-2 then used the resins in chemical compounds that it sold in Korea to the Korean manufacturer. The manufacturer then used the compounds to make the siding.br /br /The span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"COA/span held that jurisdiction couldn't be exercised over K-1 and K-2 without violating due process. K-1 and K-2 didn't solicit any business in NC or contract with any NC resident or distributor. They didn't purposefully inject their products into commerce in NC: K-1 didn't even know that the chemical resins it sold to K-2 would later be used to manufacture the siding; K-2 knew its compounds would be used to manufacture siding but it didn't know the siding would be sold outside Korea.br /br /The span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"COA/span deemed it immaterial that K-2 traveled to NC to analyze or repair the siding after problems were reported by plaintiff. Likewise, the span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"COA/span deemed it immaterial that K-2 shipped products to NC after the complaint was served, because those activities occurred after the alleged injury and after the complaint was filed.

Full post as published by North Carolina Appellate Blog on December 17, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.019 secs (new cache)