Shine Bros. Corp. v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 14–4120–MWB.,C 14–4120–MWB.
• Citation: 108 F.Supp.3d 651
• Parties: SHINE BROS. CORP., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Chartis Inc., and Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

108 F.Supp.3d 651

SHINE BROS. CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Chartis Inc., and Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants.

No. C 14–4120–MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed June 4, 2015.

108 F.Supp.3d 655

John R. Walker, Jr., Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, PC, Waterloo, IA, for Plaintiff.

John F. Lorentzen, Nyemaster Goode Voigts West Hansell & O'Brien, PC, Des Moines, IA, Matthew Michael Killen, Nicolaides, Fink, Thorpe, Michaelides, Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS	656
II.	FACTS RELATING SOLELY TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER AIG, INC. AND AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY	657
III.	ISSUES	658
IV.	DISCUSSION	658

A. Rule 12(b)(2) Motion: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 658

1.	Arguments of the Parties	661
2.	Analysis of Rule 12(b)(2) Motion	664

a.	General Personal Jurisdiction: Nature and Quality of Contacts with Iowa and Quantity of Contacts with Iowa	664
b.	Specific Personal Jurisdiction: Nature and Quality of Contacts with Iowa and the Relationship Between Shine's Causes of Action and Contacts of AIG, Inc. and AIG Property Casualty	668
c.	The Last Two "Secondary Factors": Iowa's Interest in Providing a Forum and Convenience of the Parties	672

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion: Failure to State a Claim 673

1.	Arguments of the Parties	674
2.	Analysis of Rule 12(b)(6) Motion	676

C. Jurisdictional Discovery 676

1.	Arguments of the Parties	677
2.	Analysis of Jurisdictional Discovery	679

V. CONCLUSION 680

Plaintiff, an industrial corporation in Iowa, filed suit in Iowa state court, alleging that out-of-state defendants, two corporate entities and one indirect subsidiary of those entities, breached their contractual obligations and fiduciary duties, and acted in bad faith with respect to a pollution liability insurance policy. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants' insurance policy provided coverage for the plaintiff's defense costs, fines, and clean-up costs in relation to a notice, dated March

108 F.Supp.3d 656

31, 2014, from The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as to alleged contaminants that flowed from the plaintiff's facility in Spencer, Iowa, into a nearby pond of a public park. The defendants did not provide insurance coverage to the plaintiff and refused to defend the plaintiff as to the alleged environmental events that occurred at the plaintiff's facility. After removal to federal court, the defendants moved for dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The merits of the plaintiff's claims are not before me at this time. Rather, I must resolve, inter alia, whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the two named corporate defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa to satisfy the exercise of specific or general personal jurisdiction thereby overcoming the defendants' 12(b)(2) motion. In addition, I confront whether the plaintiff defeats the defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and whether to permit the plaintiff to conduct limited discovery confined to the issue of personal jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS

The following facts are drawn from AIG Claims, Inc.'s letter to the plaintiff denying insurance coverage, the parties' memorandums, the defendants' declarations, and the plaintiff's state law petition.¹ Plaintiff Shine Bros....