Vickery v. Amarillo Freightliner Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1232,82CA1232 |
| Parties | Chester R. VICKERY and Edward Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMARILLO FREIGHTLINER SALES, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw & Harring, Richard L. Shearer, Mark A. Nadeau, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Holland & Hart, Timothy M. Rastello, Gregory A. Eurich, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiffs brought this tort action against two non-resident corporations and one non-resident individual alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence, surrounding the execution of a sales contract, and an extended warranty agreement, and also intentional interference with contractual rights. Service of process was accomplished pursuant to the provisions of the "Long-Arm Statute," § 13-1-124, C.R.S. Defendant Amarillo Freightliner Sales, Inc., (Amarillo) filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Colorado courts lacked jurisdiction. After considering the stipulated facts, the trial court granted Amarillo's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint against it on the basis: (1) that this was not one of the types of action to which the Long-Arm Statute was applicable because the tort did not occur in Colorado, and (2) that there were insufficient contacts between Amarillo and the State of Colorado to justify the Colorado courts in exercising jurisdiction. The trial court also entered a C.R.C.P. 54(b) order. This appeal ensued. We affirm the judgment of dismissal.
The test for determining whether the courts of a state may assert and exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident of that state is a two-pronged one. First, it must be determined whether the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction is authorized by statute, and, if so, it then must be determined whether such exercise is consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process. Yarbrough v. Elmer Bunker & Associates, 669 F.2d 614 (10th Cir.1982). Both elements of the test must be satisfied before the courts of the forum state may exercise jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant. We conclude that here neither test was met.
In September 1981, Amarillo sold to Vickery a used diesel truck. The engine of that truck later malfunctioned in Grand Junction, Colorado, giving rise to a dispute over the warranty coverage which had been purchased by the plaintiffs. This unresolved dispute resulted in the plaintiffs bringing this lawsuit in the district court in Montrose, Colorado. Amarillo was served with process in Texas.
The facts, stipulated to by the parties, disclosed that Amarillo is a corporation formed under the laws of Texas. All of Amarillo's employees work out of Amarillo's one and only office located in Amarillo, Texas. Amarillo does not have any sales representatives, employees, offices, bank accounts, or telephone listings in the State of Colorado. Amarillo maintains no agent for service of process within the State of Colorado. Amarillo is not registered or qualified to do business within the State of Colorado, does not own or rent any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schocket v. Classic Auto Sales, Inc.
...not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." This case should not be confused with Vickery v. Amarillo Freightliner Sales, Inc., 695 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1984). Although the facts appear to be similar as to the purchase of the vehicle, our court distinguished the issu......
-
Martinez v. Farmington Motors, Inc.
...of Colorado courts. Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1968); Vickery v. Amarillo Freightliner Sales, Inc., 695 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1984). However, when a person regularly advertises in publications that have their principal circulation in one state, it b......