The Tennessee Supreme Court has issue an opinion in Baskin v. Pierce & Allred Construction, Inc., No. M2021-00144-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2024).
The High Court reversed a ruling by the Court of Appeals that the defendant could be sued in Tennessee, saying defendant
Pierce & Allred Construction’s contacts with Tennessee were not such that the corporation reasonably should have anticipated being haled into a Tennessee court to answer this suit. In making this determination, we conclude that certain contacts with Tennessee did not reflect that the corporation purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Tennessee, while certain other contacts were not sufficiently related to Mr. Baskin’s claims to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Thus, we hold that Mr. Baskin failed to establish a prima facie case of the minimum contacts necessary for a Tennessee court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Alabama corporation.
Id. at *1.
The 24-page opinion by the unanimous court determines the law of personal jurisdiction in Tennessee. Of course, in determining whether a plaintiff has met the burden of proving the defendant can be forced to defend a case in Tennessee, the devil is in the details. But here is how our Supreme Court summarized its opinion:
Thus, we are called upon in this appeal to assess whether the nature and quality of the Defendant’s activities associated with the cabin project and the Bradley project were such that it reasonably should have anticipated being haled into a Tennessee court to defend an action asserting breach of contract and breach of warranty stemming from the construction of a lake house in Alabama pursuant to a contract with a Tennessee resident. For the reasons detailed above, we have determined that the nature and extent of those activities were not such that it was reasonably foreseeable that the Defendant could be sued in Tennessee for the allegedly shoddy residential construction work it provided to the Plaintiff in Alabama. Accordingly, we conclude that the Defendant’s Tennessee activities associated with the cabin project and the Bradley project were not sufficiently related to the Plaintiff’s claims to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction over the Defendant in this case.
We do not doubt that the Defendant’s Tennessee contacts associated with the Bradley project in particular were meaningful. Nevertheless, even when a defendant has meaningful ties to a forum, if they do not connect sufficiently to the plaintiff’s claim, they cannot sustain the power of the courts of the forum state to hear that claim. See Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314, 317–18 (5th Cir. 2021). Based on our review of the record, we have determined that the Defendant’s Tennessee contacts associated with the cabin project and the Bradley project were not “related to” the Plaintiff’s claims concerning the Baskin project. Absent that affiliation, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of the Defendant’s unconnected activities in Tennessee. See Bristol-Myers, 582 U.S. at 264 (citing Goodyear Dunlop, 564 U.S. at 931 n.6).
Id. at *23-24.
This opinion is a must-read for those seeking to haul an out-of-state corporation into Tennessee in a situation where the presence of personal jurisdiction is not a slam-dunk. Doing so will give rise to better investigation, better pleading, and better jurisdiction-related discovery. So too for defendants seeking to avoid defending a case in Tennessee – a careful review of this opinion will let one know what the Tennessee courts will be looking at in determining whether to require a defendant to play ball on a Tennessee court.