On November 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of Missouri overturned the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County over PPG Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based corporation. State ex rel. PPG Indus., Inc. v. McShane, No. SC97006 (Mo. banc 2018). The court found that PPG’s passive website activity reachable by users in every state of the country was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over PPG in Missouri.

How did this issue come before the Supreme Court of Missouri?

The issue arose when a Missouri company, Hilboldt Curtainwall, Inc., agreed to supply materials to a Missouri-based construction project. The project required Hilboldt to use coating for aluminum extrusions supplied by PPG or an approved substitute. After seeing Finishing Dynamics, LLC, listed on PPG’s website as an approved substitute, Hilboldt contracted with Finishing Dynamics to apply the coating. Thereafter, Finishing Dynamics improperly applied the coating, causing the extrusions irreparable damage.

Hilboldt filed suit against Finishing Dynamics and PPG in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Hilboldt brought claims for negligent misrepresentation against PPG based on PPG’s listing of Finishing Dynamics as an approved substitute on its website. PPG moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the circuit court denied. PPG then filed a writ of prohibition against the circuit court, which the Supreme Court of Missouri issued.

How did the Supreme Court of Missouri reach its decision?

Missouri courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant through either general or specific jurisdiction. The parties agreed that Missouri does not have general jurisdiction over PPG. On the Supreme Court of Missouri’s review of the case, it considered whether Missouri had specific jurisdiction over PPG, which requires that: 1) the defendant’s conduct falls within the state’s long-arm statute, and 2) the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy due process. Missouri’s long-arm statute extends to corporations that commit a tortious act, which includes “extraterritorial acts that produce consequences in the state, such as fraud.” RSMo 2000 §506.500.1(3). Hilboldt argued that PPG’s website produced consequences in Missouri because PPG’s online misrepresentations were received, relied upon, and caused injury to Hilboldt in Missouri. To support its contention, Hilboldt relied on Bryant v. Smith Interior Design Grp., Inc., where an out-of-state defendant was subjected to specific jurisdiction in Missouri after sending physical mail, sending emails and making phone calls to the Missouri plaintiff. 310 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Mo. banc 2010).

In declining to exert specific jurisdiction over PPG, the court agreed with PPG’s position that it did not make any contacts with the state other than indirectly through its website, which does not “target” Missouri residents, and is equally available to individuals in all 50 states. The court emphasized that not only did PPG fail to contact Missouri, but PPG’s connection with Missouri was further “muddled” because PPG had no role in Finishing Dynamic’s unilateral mistake.

What does this mean for personal jurisdiction in Missouri?

Out-of-state defendants will not be subjected to personal jurisdiction in Missouri as a result of indirect contact with its residents, such as language on a passive website directed to consumers generally across the country.