Edgerton v. Safeway Insurance Company of Georgia

Filing 9

ORDER granting 4 defendant's Motion to Dismiss (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/24/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EVAN EDGERTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY
OF GEORGIA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-40-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed January 13, 2014. On January 28,
2014, plaintiff filed his response, and on February 4, 2014, defendant filed its reply.
Defendant moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
for lack of personal jurisdiction.1 When a court’s jurisdiction is contested, the plaintiff has the
burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See ASAT Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d
1054, 1056 (10th Cir. 2008). “Where a district court considers a pre-trial motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a
prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” Id. at 1056-57.
To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a
diversity action, a plaintiff must show both that jurisdiction is proper
under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction
would not offend due process. Because Oklahoma’s long-arm statute
permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the
United States Constitution, the personal jurisdiction inquiry under
Oklahoma law collapses into the single due process inquiry.

1

Defendant also moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. Because this Court finds it lacks personal jurisdiction
over defendant, the Court need not address this alternative basis for dismissal.

Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions, Inc., 205 F.3d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal
citations omitted).
The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant so long as there exist minimum contacts
between the defendant and the forum State. The “minimum contacts”
standard may be met in two ways. First, a court may, consistent with
due process, assert specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of
the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise
out of or relate to those activities. When a plaintiff’s cause of action
does not arise directly from a defendant’s forum-related activities, the
court may nonetheless maintain general personal jurisdiction over the
defendant based on the defendant’s business contacts with the forum
state.
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).2
A specific jurisdiction analysis involves a two-step inquiry. First [a
court] must consider whether the defendant’s conduct and connection
with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there. Second if the defendant’s actions create
sufficient minimum contacts, [a court] must then consider whether
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant offends
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1075 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). “A defendant’s contacts are sufficient if the defendant purposefully directed its activities
at residents of the forum, and . . . the plaintiff’s claim arises out of or results from actions by the
defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum state.” Id. at 1076 (internal
quotations and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, whether a defendant has the
required minimum contacts must be decided on the particular facts of each case. See id.

2

In his response, plaintiff concedes that defendant does not have sufficient contacts with
Oklahoma for general personal jurisdiction.
2

Defendant is incorporated under the laws of Georgia and is licensed to do business in
Georgia. Defendant’s business is limited to Georgia, and defendant only sells Georgia policies to
Georgia residents. Defendant does not write, advertise, sell, or solicit insurance policies within
Oklahoma, and defendant is not, and never has been, licensed in Oklahoma. Defendant sold the
insurance policy at issue in this case to plaintiff while plaintiff was a citizen of Georgia. Plaintiff
moved to Oklahoma some time after purchasing the policy, and the car accident giving rise to
plaintiff’s insurance claim occurred in Oklahoma.
In his response, plaintiff contends that defendant has sufficient contacts with Oklahoma
based upon defendant’s issuance of an insurance policy in which it agreed to defend certain claims
against plaintiff in any state and agreed to compensate or indemnify plaintiff for damages arising
from a car accident in any state, defendant’s acceptance of premiums from Oklahoma, plaintiff’s
filing of a claim from Oklahoma, and defendant’s subsequent denial of that claim in bad faith and
breach of contract. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff
has not met his burden of proving that this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendant.
Plaintiff’s contention that this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendant relies almost
exclusively on an alleged territory of coverage clause contained in the insurance policy. Plaintiff,
however, does not attach a copy of the insurance policy to either his response or his Petition and
does not reference said clause in his Petition. Thus, any reliance by this Court on this alleged
territory of coverage clause to establish personal jurisdiction would require pure speculation on the
part of the Court. Further, the Court finds that defendant’s acceptance of premiums from Oklahoma
and plaintiff’s filing of a claim from Oklahoma do not create sufficient minimum contacts to
establish specific personal jurisdiction over defendant.

3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 4] and
DISMISSES this action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2014.

4