In the recent case of In re Asbestos Liability Litigation (No. IV), No. 18-3622 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2019, Robreno, J.), personal jurisdiction law in Pennsylvania was dramatically changed. Traditionally, personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in Pennsylvania was governed by 15 Pa.C.S. Section 411 and 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5301 and did not represent a very high bar to reach. Under Section 411(a), a foreign corporation was required to formally register in the Commonwealth in order to do business. Furthermore, the act of registering constituted a sufficient basis for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5301(a)(2)(i).
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) held that, under the Due Process Clause, finding general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in every state in which it engaged in substantial, continuance and systematic course of business was unacceptable. Under Daimler, jurisdiction was limited, except in certain exigent circumstances, to where the foreign corporation was incorporated and where it maintained its principle place of business.
Subsequently, federal and state courts in Pennsylvania strove to apply Daimer with 15 Pa.C.S. Section 411 and 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5301. In Asbestos Liability Litigation, Judge Robreno held that requiring foreign corporations to register and submit to jurisdiction in order to do business in Pennsylvania was in violation of the Due Process Clause and unconstitutional. Accordingly, personal jurisdiction Pennsylvania is now limited to where the foreign corporation is incorporated and where it maintained its principle place of business.
