## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 12, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT TH AGRI CULT URE & NUTRI TI ON, LL C,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. AC E E UR OP E AN GR OUP L I M I T E D; AGF I NS UR ANC E , L T D. ; AXA GL OB AL R IS K S (U K ), L T D .; A X A S C H A D E N .V .; CGU I NTE RNATI ONA L I NSURANCE P L C; CH UB B I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY OF EU RO PE S . A. ; FORTI S CORPO RA TE I NSU RA NC E N. V. ; GEN ERA LI S CH ADE VE RZ E KE RI NG M A A T S C H A P P IJ , N .V .; GE RL I NG- KONZ E RN AL L GE M E I NE VE RS I CH E RU NGS - AG; HDI VE Z E KE RI NGE N N. V. ; RO YAL & S UN ALLI AN CE I NSU RA NC E ( GLO BA L) L T D. ; WI NT E RT HUR S CH ADE VE RZ E KE RI NG M AATS CHAPP I J N. V. ; XL I NSURANCE C O M P A N Y L IM IT E D ,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3105

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. Ct . No . 0 5 - CV- 2 4 2 3 - J W L) K enneth H . Fr enchman, D i cks t ei n Shapi r o M or i n & O s hi ns kyL L P, N ew Y or k, N ew Y o rk (R o b in L . C o h en , D o roth yA . T h o m as, an d A n d rew N . B o u rne , D icks tei n S h ap ir o- 2-

M or i n & O s hi ns kyL L P, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, and M i chae l J . A br ams, L athr op & G age, L L C , K ans as C i ty , M i s s our i , w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , appea r i ng forPl ai nt i ffA p p e llan t. T hom as W . B runner , W i l eyR ei n & Fi el di ng L L P, W as hi ngt on, D C ( R i char d A . I fftand K ar al ee C. M or el l , W i l eyR ei n & Fi el di ng L L P, W as hi ngt on, D C ; D an B i l es , G at es B i l es S h iel d s & R y an P . A . , O v erlan d P ark , K an sas; N o rm an C . K lei n b erg , D ere k J. T . A d ler, W i l l i am J. B eaus ol ei l , H ughes H ubbar d & R eed, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, w i th hi m on t he bri ef), app eari ng for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B e f o re , T AC HA , C h ie f

C ir c u it J u d g e , BA LD OCK , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T AC HA , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antT H A gr i cul tur e & N utr i t i on, L L C ( “TH A N ”) fi l ed s ui ti n t he D i s tr i ctC our tagai ns tD efe ndant - A ppel l ee i ns ur ance compani es ( “I ns ur er s ”) , s eeki ng damages and dec l ar at oryr el i ef f orthe I ns ur er s ’ al l eged br eac h of i ns ur ance pol i ci es u n d e r w h ich T H A N is in su re d . T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e In su re rs’ m o tio n s to d is m is s b a s e d o n la c k o f p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e In s u re rs a n d im p ro p e r v e n u e . T HAN a p p e a l s . We e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . Be c a u s e we c o n c l u d e th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tl a c k s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e I n s u r e r s , we AFF I RM th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g a n d D IS M IS S T H A N ’s a p p e a l. I . BA CKGROUND T H A N is a lim ited liab ili tyc o m p a n yo rg a n ize d u n d e r th e law s o f D e law a re w ithDe f e n d a n t s d i s p u t e th a tT HAN’ s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i s i n Ka n s a s . T HAN 1 has s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tfr om i t s corpor at e s ecr et arythats t at es thatT H A N has m ai nt ai ned i t s corpor at e hea dquart er s i n L enexa s i nce 1994. B eca us e w e mustr es ol ve f a c tu a l d is p u te s in f

a v o r o f th e p la in tif

f , B ellHeli co

p ter T ex tron , Inc . v. H

eli q w est Int’l , 385 F. 3d 1291, 1295 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , w e as s um e thatT H A N ’ s pr i nci pal pl ace of b u s in e s s is in d e e d in K a n s a s . D efe ndant s ar e A C E E ur opean G r oup L i m i t ed; A G F I ns ur ance L t d. ; A X A G l obal 2 R i s ks ( U K ) L t d. ; A X A Schade N . V . ; C G U I nt ernat i onal I ns ur ance ; C hubb I ns ur ance C om panyof Europe S. A . ; For t i s C orpor at e I ns ur ance N . V . ; G ener al i Schadeve r zeke r i ng M a a t s c h a p p i

j , N. V. ; Ge r l i n g - Ko n z e rn Al l e g me i n e Ve r s i c h e ru n g s - AG; HDI V eze r ker i ngen N . V . ; R oy al & Sun A l l i ance I ns ur ance ( G l obal ) L t d. ; W i nt erthur Schadeve r zeke r i ng M aat s chappi j N . V . ; and X L I ns ur ance C om panyL i m i t ed.

- 3- i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n L enexa , K ans as . T H A N i s a s ubs i di aryof Phi l i ps 1 E l ectr oni cs N or th A m er i ca Corpor at i on ( “PE N A C ”) , w hi ch i n turn i s a s ubs i di aryof K o n in k lij k e P h ili p s E lec tro n ics N .V . (“P h ili p s” ), a D u tch c o rp o ra tio n . T h e D e f e n d a n ts ar e thi r t een Eur opean i ns ur ance compani es , i ncl udi ng fi ve w i th thei rpl ace of 2 i ncorpor at i on and pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n the N ether l ands , s i x w i th thei rpl ace of i ncorpor at i on and pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n the U ni t ed K i ngdom , one w i th i t s pl ace of i ncorpor at i on and pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n G erm any , and one w i th i t s pl ace of i ncorpor at i on i n B el gi um and pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n the N ether l ands . T he I ns ur er s s ubs cr i bed t o pr i m aryand exc es s gener al l i abi l i tyi ns ur ance pol i ci es know n as th e W o rl d -W id e L ia b ility In s u ra n c e P ro g ra m m e (t h e “ P ro g ra m m e ” o r “ p o lic ie s ” ). A D ut ch i ns ur ance br oker , A O N N eder l and, pl ace d the i ns ur ance pol i ci es underthe Pr ogr amm e w i th i ndi vi dual i ns ur er s , and the D efe ndant - I ns ur er s s ubs equent l yi s s ued the pol i ci es t o Phi l i ps i n the N ether l ands . T he Pr ogr amm e pr ovi des w or l dw i de i ns ur ance cover age t o Phi l i ps , the named i ns ur ed, and i t s unnamed di r ectand i ndi r ects ubs i di ar i es- 4-

f o r th e p e rio d f

ro m D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 9 7 , thr o u g h D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 . B yv irtu e o f its s ta tu s a s a n in d ir e c t s u b s id ia ry o f P h ilip s , T H A N is in s u re d u n d e r t h e P ro g ra m m e . U nderthe Pr ogr amm e, the I ns ur er s agr ee t o i ndemni fythe i ns ur ed aga i ns tpr oduct l i abi l i tycl ai m s i nvol vi ng “per s onal orbodi l yi nj ury , i ncl udi ng death. ” The pol i ci es pr ovi de: T he I ns ur er s w i l l , s ubj ectt o the Li m i t s of Li abi l i ty , i ndemni fythe I ns ur ed in re sp e c t o f

th e ir liab ili tya t law f

o r c o m p e n sa tio n a n d c laim a n ts[ ’] c o sts and expe ns es , i ncurr ed bythe I ns ur ed, ar i s i ng outof I nj uryt o anyper s on, D amage t o pr operty , orFi nanci al L os s and occ urr i ng dur i ng the Per i od of I ns ur ance . I n a d d i t i o n , th e I n s u r e r s r e s e r v e th e r i g h tt o c o n tr o l a n yl i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g c l a i ms c o v e r e d b yth e p o l i c i e s . Un d e ra s u b s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d “ Co n tr o l o f Cl a i ms , ” th e P r o g r a mme s t at es : “The I ns ur ed s hal l noti ncuranyexpens e i n l i t i gat i on orotherw i s e make any paym ent , s ett l ement , arr angementoradmi s s i on of l i abi l i tyi n r es pectof anycl ai m for w hi ch the I ns ur er s w oul d be l i abl e her eunderw i thoutauthor i tyof the I ns ur er s . ” The s ubs ect i on al s o pr ovi des : “The I ns ur er s s hal l i n r es pectof anycl ai m i ns ur ed her eunderbe ent i t l ed t o us e the name of the I ns ur ed i n the br i ngi ng, defe ndi ng, enfor ci ng ors ett l i ng of l egal pr ocee di ngs forthe bene fi tof the I ns ur er s and s hal l have a bs ol ut e conduc tand contr ol of s uch pr ocee di ngs . ” T he pol i ci es al s o i ncl ude the fol l ow i ng “J ur i s di ct i on” cl aus e thataddr es s es the p a r t i e s ’ c h o i c e o f

l a w a n d c h o i c e o f

f o ru m: A nydis pu t e con cerni ng the int erpr et at i on of the t erm s, con dit i on s, l i m i t at i ons and/ orexcl us i ons cont ai ned i n thi s Pol i cyi s her ebyunder s t ood and agr eed byboth t he I ns ur ed and the I ns ur er s t o be s ubj ectt o the l aw of- 5-

the N ether l ands . E ach pa r tyagr ees t o s ubm i tt o the j ur i s di ct i on of any c o u rt o f c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n w ith in th e N e th e rla n d s a n d to c o m p lyw ith all req u ir em en ts ne ce ssaryto g ive s u ch C o u rtjuri sd ict ion . A ll m att ers ar i s i ng her eunders hal l be det erm i ned i n acc or dance w i th the l aw and p ra c tic e o f

s u c h C o u rt . Fr om atl eas t1961 t o 1981, T H A N ’ s pr edec es s orcompanyand a Phi l i ps su b sid iar y , T h o m p so n H a yw a rd C h e m ica l C o m p a n yo f K a n sa s C ity , M iss o u ri, d istri b u ted ra w asb esto s. T h e m ajorityo f th e c o m p an y ’s op era ti o n s w ere so ld to third part i es pr i ort o 1985, s i nce w hi ch t i m e TH A N ’ s pr i m aryfunct i on has been t o s at i s fyt he c o m p a n y ’s e x istin g liab ili ties a n d to p e rf o rm e n v iro n m e n tal re m e d iatio n se rv ice s in connec t i on w i th i t s envi r onm ent al l i abi l i t i es . T H A N has been na m ed as a def endantor co- defe ndanti n m or e than 14, 000 cl ai m s fi l ed i n s t at e and f eder al court s acr os s the U ni t ed St at es al l egi ng bodi l yi nj uryand w r ongful death forexpos ur e t o as bes t os al l egedl ydi s tr i but ed byT hom ps on H ayw ar d. O ne s uch cl ai m w as fi l ed i n K ans as , and T H A N ’s r e g u lar b u sin e ss a c tiv iti e s w ith re sp e c t to th e a sb e sto s c laim s ta k e p lac e in L e n e x a , K a n s a s . Phi l i ps fi r s tpr ovi ded not i ce of the as bes t os cl ai m s t o the Pr ogr amm e on N ov em ber 21, 2002 . T hereaft er, the Insurer s purport edlyres ci nd ed thei r pol i ci es, cl ai m i ng Phi l i ps fai l ed dur i ng negot i at i ons overthe Pr ogr amm e t o di s cl os e r el evant i nform at i on know n t o i tr egar di ng the as bes t os cl ai m s . O n A ugus t10, 2005, tw el ve of the thi rt een Insurer s ( al l bu tX L Insur ance C om pan yL i m i t ed) broug ht s uitagainst Phi l i ps , PE N A C , and TH A N i n the N ether l ands , s eeki ng decl ar at oryr el i ef a nd c o n f i r ma t i o n o f

th e i rr e s c i s s i o n o f

th e P r o g r a mm e . On S e p t e mb e r2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , T HAN- 6-

br oughtthe i ns t antact i on i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t , s eeki ng damages forbr eac h of contr act and a de cl ar at oryj udgm entthatthe I ns ur er s ar e obl i gat ed t o i ndemni fyT H A N forl os s es res ult i ng from the asbe st os cl ai m s and to paythe co st s of de fend i ng againstthese cl ai m s.

I I . DI S CU S S I ON “W e r evi ew de novo [a ] di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. ” B enton v. C am eco Corp. , 3 7 5 F .3 d 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). W hen, as her e, a di s tr i ctcourtent er s a di s m i s s al w i thoutan evi dent i aryhear i ng, the p la in tif f n e e d o n ly m a k e a p ri m a f a c ie s h o w in g o f

p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n . I d. “The pl ai nt i ff maym ake thi s pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng bydemonstr at i ng, vi a af fi davi torother w r i t t en mat er i al s , fac t s thati f true w oul d s uppor tj ur i s di ct i on overthe def endant . ” O MI H oldi ngs , I

nc. v. R oyal

I ns . C o. of

C anada , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). In deci di ng w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s m ade the nec es s arypr i m a fa ci e s how i ng, w e r es ol ve a n yf a c tu a l d is p u te s in th e p la in tif f ’s f a v o r. B enton , 375 F. 3d at1074. I n or dert o defe at a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng of j ur i s di ct i on, the def endantm us tdemonstr at e “thatthe pr es ence of s om e othercons i der at i ons w oul d r enderj ur i s di ct i on unr eas onabl e. ” O M I H oldi ngs, I nc. , 1 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 1 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). “To obt ai n per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overa nonr es i dentdefe ndanti n a di ver s i tyact i on, a pl ai nt i ff musts how thatj ur i s di ct i on i s l egi t i m at e underthe l aw s of the forum s t at e and th a t th e e x e rc ise o f

ju risd ictio n d o e s n o t o f f e n d th e d u e p ro c e ss c lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endment . ” P r o A xes s , I nc. v. O r l ux D is tr i b’ n, I nc. , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 6 (10 th C ir .- 7-

2 0 0 5 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). “B e c a u se th e K a n sa s lo n g -a rm sta tu te is c o n stru e d lib e ra lly so a s to a llo w ju risd ictio n to th e f u ll ex ten t p e rm itt e d b yd u e p ro c e ss , w e p ro c e e d d ire c tly t o the cons t i tut i onal i s s ue. ” O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 1 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 0 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T H A N does notas s ertthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm ayexer ci s e gene r al j ur i s di ct i on overthe I ns ur er s bas ed on thei r“cont i nuous and s y s t emat i c gene r al bus i nes s cont act s ” w i th the f o ru m s ta te . He lico

p ter o s N a c io n a les d e C o lo m b ia v . H a ll , 4 6 6 U .S . 4 0 8 , 4 1 5 (1 9 8 4 ). W e the ref

o re a sk w h ethe r th e e x erc ise o f sp ec ifi c p erso n al j u ri sd ict ion o v er the Insu rers w ou l d o ffen d d ue p rocess . O urs peci fi c j ur i s di ct i on i nqui ryi nvol ves tw o s t eps . Fi r s t , w e as k w hetherthe nonr es i dentdefe ndanthas “mi ni m um cont act s ” w i th the forum s t at e s uch “‘ thathe s houl d r eas onabl yant i ci pat e bei ng hal ed i nt o courtther e. ’ ” O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1091 ( quot i ng W or ld- W i de Volks w agen C or

p. v. W oods on , 444 U . S. 286, 297 ( 1980) ) . Second, i f the def endanthas s uffi ci entm i ni m um cont act s , w e as k w hethert he court ’ s “exe r ci s e of pe r s onal j ur i s di ct i on overthe def endantoffe nds ‘ tr adi t i onal not i ons of fa i rpl ayand s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng A s ahiMetalI ndus . C o. v. Super . C t . of C a l. , 480 U . S. 102, 113 ( 1987) ) . T hi s ques t i on turns on w hetherthe exe r ci s e of pe r s onal ju ri s d ic tio n is “ re a s o n a b le ” u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f a g iv e n c a s e . I

d. A n “i nt erpl ay e x ists b e tw e e n th e tw o c o m p o n e n ts [ o f th e sp e c if

ic ju risd ictio n in q u iry ], su c h th a t, dependi ng on t he s tr ength of the def endant ’ s cont act s w i th the forum s t at e, the r eas onabl enes s componentof the cons t i tut i onal t es tm ayhave a gr eat erorl es s ereff ecton th e o u tc o m e o f

th e d u e p ro c e s s in q u ir y .” I d. at1091–92 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n other- 8-

w or ds , “the r eas onabl enes s pr ong of the due pr oces s i nqui ryevokes a s l i di ng s cal e: the w e a k e r th e p lain tiff ’s s h o w in g o n m in im u m c o n tac ts, th e les s th e d e f e n d a n t n e e d sh o w in t erm s of unr eas onabl enes s t o defe atj ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. at1092 ( quot at i on and al t er at i on o m itted). A . M in im u m C o n tac ts T h e d e ter m in a tio n o f

w h e th e r a n o n re sid e n t d e f e n d a n t h a s m in im u m c o n tac ts s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta court ’ s exer ci s e of pe r s onal j ur i s di ct i on depends on the “pa r t i cul ar fac t s of ea ch ca s e. ” B enton , 375 F. 3d at1076 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A nonr es i dent d e f e n d a n t h a s “ m in im u m c o n tac ts” w ith th e f o ru m sta te w h e n h e “ sh o u ld re a so n a b ly ant i ci pat e bei ng hal ed i nt o courtther e. ” W or ld- W i de Volks w agen , 4 4 4 U .S . a t 2 9 7 . A defe ndantm ayr eas onabl yant i ci pat e bei ng s ubj ectt o s ui ti n the forum s t at e “i f the defe ndanthas ‘ purpos eful l ydi r ect ed’ hi s act i vi t i es atr es i dent s of the forum , and the l i t i gat i on r es ul t s fr om al l eged i nj ur i es that‘ ar i s e outof orr el at e t o’ thos e ac t i vi t i es . ” B ur gerK i ng C or

p. v. R udz ew i cz , 4 7 1 U . S . 4 6 2 , 4 7 2 (19 8 5 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted); see al so H a n so n v . D e n c k la , 357 U . S. 235, 253 ( 1958) ( “[I ] ti s es s ent i al i n eac h cas e that ther e be s om e ac tbyw hi ch the def endantpurpos eful l yavai l s i t s el f of the pr i vi l ege of c o n d u c tin g a c tiv itie s w ith in th e f o ru m S ta te .” ). 1. P ur

pos ef ulA vai lm ent A n i ndi vi dual ’ s contr actw i th an out - of- s t at e partycannot , s t andi ng al one, e s ta b lis h s u f

f ic ie n t m in im u m c o n ta c ts w ith th e f o ru m s ta te . B ur

gerK i ng , 471 U . S. at 478. B ut“part i es w ho r eac h outbey ond one s t at e and c r eat e cont i nui ng r el at i ons hi ps and- 9-

obl i gat i ons w i th ci t i zens of anothers t at e ar e s ubj ectt o r egul at i on and s anct i ons i n the others t at e forthe cons equenc es of thei ract i vi t i es . ” Id . at 47 3 . T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a nonr es i dentdefe ndanthas purpos eful l yes t abl i s hed mi ni m um cont act s w i th the forum s t at e bycontr act i ng w i th anotherparty , w e ther efor e exa m i ne “pr i ornegot i at i ons and con t em plat ed fu ture con sequen ces, al on g w i th the t erm s of t he co ntr actand the p art i es’ actual cour s e of de al i ng. ” I d. at47 9. T hat i s, the co ntr actrel i ed u po n to est abli sh m in im u m c o n ta c ts m u s t h a v e a “ s u b s ta n tia l c o n n e c tio n ” w ith th e f o ru m s ta te . McG ee v. I nt ’ lLi f e I ns . C o. , 355 U . S. 220, 223 ( 1957) . M or eover , thi s C our thas i ndi cat ed thatt he m er e pr es ence of the i ns ur ed w i thi n the forum s t at e w i l l notes t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i al c o n n e c tio n . See R am bo v. A m . S. I ns . C o. , 839 F. 2d 1415, 1421 n. 8 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( fi ndi ng due pr oces s nots at i s fi ed w hen the i ns ur ance contr actw as notm ai l ed t o forum s t at e, the cl ai m w as notfi l ed fr om the forum s t at e, and no pr emi um s w er e mai l ed fr om the f o rum stat e). W e m usttherefore decide w hetherthe insur ance p oli ci es i n the presentcase e sta b lish a su b sta n tial c o n n e c tio n w ith K a n sa s. T h e In su re rs d id n o t so licit b u sin e ss in K ans as . Phi l i ps , headqua r t er ed i n t he N ether l ands , s ol i ci t ed the i ns ur ance pol i ci es thr ough a D ut ch br oker . I n addi t i on, the pol i ci es w er e i s s ued t o Phi l i ps i n the N e th e rla n d s, T H A N p a id n o p re m iu m s f ro m K a n sa s, P h ili p s te n d e re d T H A N ’s c laim s in Eu r o p e , a n d a l l d e a l i n g s r e l a t i n g t o th e p o l i c i e s a n d c o v e r a g e f o rth e a s b e s t o s c l a i ms agai ns tT H A N t ook pl ace ei theri n the N ether l ands ori n Sw i t zer l and. T hes e i nt er act i ons i n no w ayi nvol ve K ans as and ar e i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h m i ni m um cont act s w i th the- 10-

s ta te . C f . McG ee , 355 U . S. at223 ( fi ndi ng i ns ur ance companyes t abl i s hed mi ni m um cont act s w i th C al i forni a bec aus e “[ t ] he contr actw as del i ver ed i n C al i forni a, the pr emi um s w er e mai l ed fr om ther e and the i ns ur ed w as a r es i dentof thatSt at e w hen he di ed”) . T hus , the I ns ur er s ’ cont act s w i th K ans as ar e bas ed s ol el yon the i s s uance of in su ra n c e p o licie s th a t in c lu d e a w o rld w id e ter rito ry -o f -c o v e ra g e c lau se . A s w e e x p lain bel ow , the i s s uance of an i ns ur ance pol i cythatcont ai ns a w or l dw i de t err i t ory - ofcover age c l aus e and a n opt i on t o defe nd the i ns ur ed i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h m i ni m um cont act s w i th the forum s t at e. I n O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. v. R oyal

I ns ur ance Co. of

C anada , thi s C our thel d that n o n re sid e n t in su ra n c e c o m p a n ies h a d e sta b lish e d m in im u m c o n tac ts w ith th e f o ru m sta te of K ans as bas ed on the i s s uance of an i ns ur ance pol i cyw i th a nat i onw i de t err i t ory - ofc o v e ra g e c lau se . 1 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 5 . In th a t ca se , O M I, an Io w a c o rp o ra tio n w ith its pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n M i nnes ot a, s ued i t s i ns ur er s , C anadi an i ns ur ance c o m p a n ie s , in K a n s a s . I d. at1089. O M I had bee n s ued i n K ans as forpat ent inf ri n g em en t and so u g h t t o en fo rce insu ran ce p o li cies u n d er w h ich th e d ef en d an t- insu rers agr eed t o defe nd O M I agai ns tcert ai n cl ai m s i n anyU ni t ed St at es forum . W e hel d that “bycontr act i ng t o defe nd the i ns ur ed i n the forum s t at e, the i ns ur ercr eat es s om e cont act w i th the forum s t at e. ” I d. at1095. I n concl udi ng thatthe i ns ur er s had es t abl i s hed m i ni m um cont act s w i th the forum s t at e, w e di s cus s ed s i m i l arcas es deci ded byother c ir c u its . I

d. at1092–95. O MI H oldi ngs , I

nc. is s im ilar, f

o r e x a m p le, to R os s m an v. Stat e Farm Mut ual- 11-

A ut om obi l e I

ns ur ance Co. , 832 F. 2d 282 ( 4th C i r . 1987) . I n R os s m an , an a u to m o b ile i ns ur ance company“s peci fi cal l ypr om i s ed t o defe nd i t s pol i cyhol der s fr om anycl ai m or su itarisi n g fro m a los s o r ac cide n t w ith in it s p o li cyterri toryw h ich in clud ed the e n ti re U ni t ed St at es . ” I

d. at286. T he Four th C i r cui thel d thatan aut om obi l e i ns ur ance c o m p a n y“ c o u ld a n ticip a te th e risk th a t it s c lien ts w o u ld tra v e l in th e ir a u to m o b iles to di ffe r ents t at es and bec om e i nvol ved i n acc i dent s and l i t i gat i on ther e. ” I d. I ndeed, as t he courtacknow l edged, “[i ] ns ur ance byi t s natur e i nvol ves the as s ert i on of cl ai m s , and r es or tt o l i t i gat i on i s oft en nec es s ary . ” I d. (qu o tat ion o m itted). M o reo v er, th e c o u rt not ed thatthe i ns ur ance companyhad “i ndi cat ed i t s w i l l i ngnes s ” t o l i t i gat e i n the for ei gn forum byagr eei ng t o defe nd the i ns ur ed aga i ns tcert ai n cl ai m s ; the “e xpect at i on of bei ng hal ed i nt o courti n a for ei gn s t at e [w as ther efor e] an expr es s fea tur e of i t s pol i cy . ” I d. ; see al so McG ow v. McC urry , 412 F. 3d 1207, 1215 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng R os s m an , 832 F. 2d at286, forthe pr opos i t i on thatan aut om obi l e i ns ur erw ho i s s ued an i ns ur ance pol i cy w i th a nat i onw i de t err i t ory - of- cover age c l aus e es t abl i s hed mi ni m um cont act s w i th the forum s t at e bec aus e “notonl yw as i tfor es eea bl e that[the i ns ur er ] m i ghtbe s ued i n [the forum s t at e] . . . butthe ‘ expec t at i on of bei ng hal ed i nt o courti n a for ei gn s t at e i s an ex p ress f ea ture o f it s p o li cy ’”); Farm ers I ns . E xch. v. P or tage La P r ai r i e Mut . I ns . C o. , 9 0 7 F .2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (h o ld in g th a t, be c a u se th e in su re r c o n tra c ted to i ndemni fyand def

end the i ns ur ed nat i onw i de, “l i t i gat i on r equi r i ng the pr es ence of the i ns ur er[i n a for ei gn forum ] i s notonl yfor es eea bl e, buti tw as purpos eful l ycontr act ed for b yth e in su re r” ); E l iLi l l y & C o. v. H

om e I ns . C o. , 794 F. 2d 710, 720 ( D . C . C i r . 1986)In O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , w e hel d that , “bycontr act i ng t o defe nd the i ns ur ed i n t he 3 f o ru m s t a t e [ u n d e ra n a t i o n wi d e t e r r i t o ry - o f - c o v e r a g e c l a u s e ] , th e i n s u r e rc r e a t e s s o me cont actw i th the forum s t at e. ” 149 F. 3d at1095. W e di d not , how ever , deci de the i s s ue pr es ent ed bythe i ns t antcas e: w hetheran i ns ur eres t abl i s hes m i ni m um cont act s w i th t he forum st at e w hen the insur ance p oli cycon t ai ns a w orl dw i de terri t ory -of- cov erage cl ause and an opt i on t o defe nd the i ns ur ed.

- 12- ( hol di ng thatpr oduct s l i abi l i tyi ns ur ercoul d ant i ci pat e bei ng hal ed i nt o for ei gn forum beca us e i ns ur erknew thati ns ur ed di s tr i but ed i t s pr oduct s nat i onw i de, thati ns ur ed w as l i kel yt o be s ued anyw her e i n the nat i on, and thati ns ur erw oul d l i kel ybe i m pl eade d over it s d u tyto ind em n ifyo r de fe n d insu red n ati o n w ide). N ot abl y , the pol i ci es ati s s ue her e di ffe rfr om the pol i cyi n O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , beca us e theydo notcont ai n a cl aus e r equi r i ng the I ns ur er s t o defe nd T H A N i n l i t i gat i on. 3 T h e p o licie s d o , h o w e v e r, sp e c if yth a t th e “ In su re d sh a ll n o t in c u r a n ye x p e n se in l i t i gat i on orot herw i s e make anypaym ent , s ett l ement , arr angementoradmi s s i on of li ab il ityin resp ec t of

an yclaim fo r w h ich th e In su rers w o u ld b e li ab le he reu n d er w i thout au tho ri t y of the Insurers , ” and thatthe “I ns ur er s s hal l i n r es pectof anycl ai m i s s ued her eunderbe ent i t l ed t o us e the name of the I ns ur ed i n the br i ngi ng, def endi ng, enf

or ci ng ors et t l i ng of

l egal pr ocee di ngs for the b enef i tof the Insur ers a n d

sh a ll h a v e a b so lu te conduct and contr olof

s uch pr ocee di ngs ” (e m p h asis ad d ed ). T h u s, alth o u g h the In su rers are n o t r eq u ir ed to d ef

en d T H A N , theyrese rve the righ t t o d o so . T h e p o li cies the ref o re e x p re ss lyc o n tem p late th e In su re rs’ p a rticip a tio n in lit ig a tio n in f o re ig n f o ru m s, e v e n if th e yd o n o t e s ta b lis h a n o b lig a tio n to p a rt ic ip a te . W e r ecogni ze thatw e have cr i t i ci zed s i m i l arr eas oni ng i n otherci r cui t s ’ deci s i ons- 13-

to the ex tent itreli es o n the f o rese ea b il ityo f li ti g ati o n to es tablish a n insu ran ce co m p an y ’s m in im u m c o n ta c ts w ith a f o ru m s ta te . O M

I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1094–95. A s t he S u p rem e C o u rth as d ir ec ted, “‘fo rese ea b il ity ’ alon e h as n ev er b ee n a su ff ici en t ben ch m ark forper s onal j ur i s di ct i on underthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ” W or ld- W i de Volks w agen , 444 U . S. at295. I n W

or ld- W i de Volks w agen , forexampl e, the mer e for es eea bi l i tythatan i ndi vi dual coul d dr i ve a c ari nt o a part i cul ars t at e w as i ns uffi ci entt o cr eat e per s onal ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r a u to m o b ile d is tr ib u to rs f o r a p ro d u c ts lia b ility c la im . I d. at298. T he C our tal s o not ed, how ever , thatfor es eea bi l i tyi s not“w hol l yi rr el evant . ” I d. a t 2 9 7 . For es eea bi l i tythatan eve ntm ayoccuroverw hi ch a de fenda nthas no contr ol i s di s t i nct f ro m f o re s e e a b ility o f

litig a tio n b a s e d o n th e d e f e n d a n t’ s o w n a c tio n s . See i d. W hen an i ns ur eri ncl udes a br oad t err i t ory - of- cover age c l aus e i n an i ns ur ance p o l i c y , th e f

o r e s e e a b i l i tyo f

l i t i g a t i o n i n f

o r e i g n s t a t e s i s b a s e d o n th e i n s u r e r ’ s o wn a c tio n s. U n lik e a n a u to m o b ile d istrib u to r, an in su re r c a n c o n tro l w h e re it i s s u b jec t to su it byr es tr i ct i ng i t s cover age t o cert ai n j ur i s di ct i ons . A l though l i t i gat i on i nvol vi ng the in su re r’s p a rticip a tio n m a yb e m e re lyf o re se e a b le, th e f

a c t th a t th e in su re r p u rp o se f u lly b a rg a in s a n d c o n tra c ts f o r th a t p a rticip a tio n c re a tes c o n tac ts w ith th e f o ru m sta tes w ith in the scop e of the po l i cy ’s t err i t oryof co verage. In ot her w ords, the insur er’ s “w i l l i ng ness t o be ca l l ed i nt o courti n the for ei gn forum ” i s “an e xpr es s fea tur e of i t s pol i cy . ” R os s m an , 832 F. 2d at286. U nl i ke the pr oductdi s tr i but ori n W or ld- W i de Volks w agen , “an i ns ur erhas the contr actual abi l i tyt o contr ol the t err i t oryi nt o w hi ch i t s ‘ pr oduct ’

— the i ndemni fi cat i on and def ens e of c l ai m s — w i l l tr avel . ” Farm ers , 9 0 7 F .2 d a t 9 1 4 ; see al so- 14-

C om m onw eal th of

P uer t o R i co v. SS Zoe C ol ocotr oni , 628 F. 2d 652, 670 ( 1s tC i r . 1980) (“ [ A ]n in su re r is n o t at th e m e rc yo f th e in su re d o w n e r’s u n ilate ra l ch o ice o f d e stin a tio n in th e s a m e w a ya s e lle r o f c h a tte ls is a t th e m e rc yo f th e b u y e r.” ). W e ac know l edge thatw e have expr es s ed conc ern that , w hen court s focus on an i ns ur ance pol i cy ’ s s cope of cover age, theybas e j ur i s di ct i on on w hata def endant - i ns ur er do es notd o , th a t is , its f a ilu re to e x c lu d e th e f

o ru m s ta te f

ro m c o v e ra g e . S e e O MI H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 1 4 9 F . 3 d at 10 9 4 (“ R os s m an i s tr oubl es om e . . . [i n partbeca us e] by chas t i s i ng the def

endantforhavi ng the abi l i tyt o excl ude ce r t ai n forum s fr om cover age and notexer ci s i ng thatabi l i ty , the courtpl ace d gr eatw ei ghton w hatthe def endantdi d not do. Such r el i ance , how ever , i s cl ear l yatodds w i th the Supr eme C our t ’ s m andat e that m in im u m c o n tac ts b e b a se d o n th e d e f e n d a n t’s a f

f irm a tiv e a c tio n s . . . .”). W e a re n o t, how ever , s ugges t i ng thati ns ur er s es t abl i s h m i ni m um cont act s w i th a forum s t at e by fai l i ng t o excl ude i tfr om the cove r ed t err i t ory . R ather , i ns ur er s es t abl i s h m i ni m um c o n t a c t s w i th a f

o ru m s t a t e b y a

ffi rm a tive ly choos i ng t o i ncl ude the forum s t at e i n the t err i t oryof cove r age. T hati s , i ns ur er s qui t e cl ear l yavai l themsel ves of the pr i vi l ege of co n d u cti n g b u sine ss in a fo rum stat e w h en that stat e is i n clud ed in an insu ran ce p o li cy ’s t err i t oryof cove r age. W hi l e i ti s true that“fi nanci al benef i t s acc rui ng t o the def

endant fr om a col lat er alr elat i on t o the forum St at e w i l l nots uppor tj ur i s di ct i on i f theydo not s t em from a cons t i tut i onal l ycogni zabl e cont actw i th thatSt at e, ” W or ld- W i de Volks w agen , 444 U . S. at299 ( emphasi s added) , i ns ur er s benef i tfr om m or e than a c ol l at er al r el at i on wh e n th e yp u rp o s e f

u l l yi n c l u d e th e f

o ru m s t a t e i n a p o l i c y ’ s t e rr i t o ryo f c o v e r a g e . An- 15-

in su ra n c e c o m p a n y“ o f f e rs th is typ e o f

b ro a d c o v e ra g e to in d u c e c u sto m e rs to b u yits pol i ci es and t o payhi gherpr emi um s forthem. T he bene fi t s ther ebyacc rui ng t o [the i ns ur ance company ] ar e nei therfor tui t ous nori nci dent al . ” R os s m an , 8 3 2 F .2 d a t 2 8 7 ; s ee al s o Fer r el lv. W

. B end Mut . I

ns . C o. , 3 9 3 F .3 d 7 8 6 , 7 9 1 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (s a m e ); P ayne v . Motorist s’Mut. Ins. C os. , 4 F . 3 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 6 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (“T h e f ac t th at [a n au to insu rer] c h o se to p ro v id e c o v e ra g e f o r a ll fif tysta tes

— in d e e d , su c h c o v e ra g e is a lm o st c e rta in ly the onl yki nd of m arket abl e aut o i ns ur ance — cons t i tut es purpos eful avai l m entof any in d iv id u a l s ta te ’s f

o ru m .” ). M oreove r, i n assess i ng the ri sk i nv olved i n insur i ng a produ ct , an insur er m ust sp e c if ica llyc o n sid e r th e sc a le o f a p ro d u c t’s d istrib u tio n . R e f e rrin g sp e c if

ica llyto p ro d u c ts liab ili tyin su ra n c e , the D .C . C irc u it ex p lain e d h o w a n in su re r p u rp o se f u lly d ir ec ts i ts acti v it ies at a f o rum stat e b yco n tem p lat ing the risks asso ciated w ith a p rod u ct’s di s tr i but i on: In det erm i ning t he scop e of the ri sk t heyhav e i nsured, i nsurer s m ust c o n sid e r th e sc a le o n w h ich its in su re d h a s d istrib u ted a p o ten tially danger ous pr oduct . T he br oaderthe di s tr i but i on the gr eat erthe r i s k— and pr es um abl ythe hi gherthe pr emi um . T hus i ns ur er s cannotbe s ai d t o have fai l ed t o avai l themsel ves , i n a cons ci ous and del i ber at e manner , of the benef i t s of doi ng bus i nes s i n thos e for a i n w hi ch the i ns ur ed manufactur er dis tri bu t es i t s produc t s. E l iLi l l y & C o. , 7 9 4 F .2 d a t 7 2 1 ; se e a lso CS R L td . v. Fe d . In s. C o . et a l. , 146 F. Supp. 2d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (D .N .J. 2 0 0 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t d e f e n d a n t in su ra n c e c o m p a n ies h a d “ p u rp o se f u lly avai l ed themsel ves , i n a ‘ cons ci ous and del i ber at e manner ’ of the r i s ks and bene fi t s of doi ng bus i nes s ” i n t he forum s t at e bec aus e the pol i ci es i ncl uded w or l dw i de t err i t ory - of-- 16-

cover age c l aus es and the i ns ur er s “undert ook t o i ns ur e [the pl ai nt i ff] w i th the know l edge thattheyr i s ked i ndemni fy i ng [the pl ai nt i ff] agai ns tas bes t os cl ai m s [on a w or l dw i de b asis] an d fa ctore d that ri sk into the p ri ce o f th e c o v era g e the yo ff ere d ”). In th e p re se n t ca se , the In su re rs’ m in im u m c o n tac ts a re c lea rlyb a se d o n th e th e ir aff i r m at i ve ac t i on. T he I ns ur er s r eac hed outt o the forum s t at e byi ncl udi ng i tw i thi n t he pol i ci es ’ w or l dw i de t err i t ory - of- cover age c l aus e. I ndeed, the I ns ur er s acknow l edge that th e ym a k e d e lib e ra te c h o ice s re g a rd in g th e ir p o licie s’ s c o p e o f c o v e ra g e : to su p p o rt th e ir co n tention that the a sb esto s claim s are n o t cov ere d u n d er the P rog ram m e, th e In su rers ar gue thattheyw er e noti nform ed of thatr i s k and ther efor e coul d nott ake i ti nt o acc ount w hen af fi r m at i vel yext endi ng cover age t o Phi l i ps and i t s s ubs i di ar i es . B yr es ervi ng the r i ghtt o defe nd i ns ur ed ent i t i es and byagr eei ng t o m ake i ndemni typaym ent s w i thi n the t err i t oryof cove r age, the I ns ur er s have purpos eful l yavai l ed themsel ves of the pr i vi l eges and ben efi t s of co nd ucti ng bu si ness i n an yforum st at e w i thin the co vered t err i t ory . T hese act i ons ar e nei theri nci dent al noracc i dent al ; the I ns ur er s have e xpl i ci t l ycontr act ed for them and have r ece i ved hi gherpr emi um s i n excha nge forthem. Forthes e r eas ons , the I ns ur er s have e s t abl i s hed mi ni m um cont act s w i th the s t at e of K ans as . A s w e emphas i zed i n O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , how ever , thes e ki nds of cont act s ar e r el at i vel yw eak. 149 F. 3d at 1 0 9 5 (“[ S ]ole relianc e o n the territ o ryo f c o v era g e c laus e c rea tes co n tacts w h ich a re q u ali tat ivelylow o n the d u e p roc ess s ca le. ”). 2. I nj ur y Aris i ng outof

orR elat i ng t o For um A ct i vi t i es A l though w e have concl uded thatthe I ns ur er s cr eat ed s om e cont actw i th the forum- 17-

s t a t e , we mu s ts t i l l d e t e r mi n e “ wh e th e ra n e x u s e x i s t s b e twe e n [ th e ] De f e n d a n t [ s ’ ] f

o ru mr el at ed cont act s and the Pl ai nt i ff’ s caus e of a ct i on. ” I d. W e a sk “w h ethe r th e p lai n ti ff ’s c laim a rise s o u t o f

o r re su lts f

ro m ‘a c tio n s b yth e d e f e n d a n t h im se lf

thatcr eat e a s ubs t ant i al connec t i on w i th the forum s t at e. ’ ” I d. at1091 ( quot i ng A s ahi , 480 U . S. at109 ( pl ur al i tyopi ni on) ) . T he I ns ur er s ’ cont actw i th K ans as ar os e w hen theyi s s ued pol i ci es thati ncl uded K ans as w i thi n the cove r ed t err i t oryand r es erved the r i ghtt o contr ol l i t i gat i on r el at ed t o cover ed cl ai m s . T H A N i s s eeki ng cover age unde rthe pol i cyfor j udgm ent s ent er ed aga i ns ti tand cos t s i ncurr ed i n l i t i gat i ng as bes t os cl ai m s , atl eas tone of w hich w as fi l ed in K ansas. C on sequen t l y , T H A N ’s cl ai m s ar i se out of t he Insurer s’ c o n ta c t w ith K a n s a s . See i d. at1095 ( concl udi ng pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m ar os e outof def endant i ns ur ance compani es ’ forum - r el at ed ac t i vi tybeca us e “D efe ndant s ’ cont act s ar os e w hen the compani es i s s ued pol i ci es agr eei ng t o defe nd Pl ai nt i ff f r om s ui ti n K ans as [, and] P l ai nti ff co m plai n[ed ] that D efen dan t s w rongf ull yrefused t o d efen d them un der these p o li cies” ). B . T r adi t i onal N ot i ons of Fai rPl ayand Subs t ant i al J us t i ce E ven w hen a de fenda nthas purpos eful l yes t abl i s hed mi ni m um cont act s w i th a forum s t at e, “mi ni m um r equi r ement s i nher enti n the conc eptof fa i rpl ayand s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce maydefe atthe r eas onabl enes s of j ur i s di ct i on. ” B ur gerK i ng , 471 U . S. at477–78 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). H e n c e , alth o u g h th e In su re rs h a v e su f f icie n t m in im u m c o n tac ts w ith K an sas, w e m u st de cide w h ethe r th e a sserti o n o f p erso n al j u ri sd ict ion o v er the Insu rers comport s w i th “tr adi t i onal not i ons of fa i rpl ayand s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce. ” A s ahi , 480 U . S. at- 18-

113 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s det erm i nat i on r equi r es a ca s e- s peci fi c i nqui ryi nt o the r eas onabl enes s of the exe r ci s e of pe r s onal j ur i s di ct i on overa def endantw ho has m i ni m um c o n ta c ts w ith th e f

o ru m s ta te . See i d. W e a ss e ss re a so n a b len e ss b yw e ig h in g f iv e f a c to rs: ( 1) the bur den on the def endant , ( 2) the forum s t at e’ s i nt er es ti n r es ol vi ng the di s put e, ( 3) the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt er es ti n r ece i vi ng conveni entand ef fec t i ve rel i ef, (4) the int ers t at e j ud i ci al sy st em ’s i nter esti n o btai ning t he m ost eff i ci entr es ol ut i on of contr over s i es , and ( 5) the s har ed i nt er es tof the s ever al st at es i n fu rtheri ng fun dam ental subst anti ve social po l i ci es. I nt er con, I

nc. v. B el lA t lant i c I

nt er net Sol ut i ons , I

nc. , 2 0 5 F . 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 9 (10 th C ir . 2000) ( ci t i ng B ur

gerK i ng , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 4 7 7 ). I n as s es s i ng the r eas onabl enes s of j ur i s di ct i on, w e al s o t ake i nt o acc ountthe s tr ength of a de fenda nt ’ s m i ni m um cont act s . A s w e have pr evi ous l ys t at ed, the r eas onabl enes s pr ong of the due pr oces s i nqui ry“‘ evokes a s l i di ng s cal e: the w eake rt he pl ai nt i ff’ s s how i ng on [m i ni m um cont act s ] , the l es s a def endantneed s how i n t erm s of unr eas onabl enes s t o defe atj ur i s di ct i on. ’ ” OM I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1092 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng T ick e tm a ste r-N

e w Y o rk , In c . v. A lio to , 26 F. 3d 201, 210 ( 1 s tC i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . H e r e , th e I n s u r e r s ’ m i n i m u m c o n t a c t s — b a s e d o n a w o r l d w i d e t e rr i t o r yof- cover age c l aus e and a r i ghtt o defe nd the i ns ur ed— ar e “qua l i t at i vel yl ow on the due pr oces s s cal e. ” I

d. at1095. B eca us e thei rcont act s ar e w eak, the I ns ur er s need notm ake a strong sho w i ng of u nreasonab l eness. W i th thi s i n m i nd , w e con si der each reasonab l eness f a c to r b e lo w a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e e x e rc ise o f p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n o v e r th e In su re rs in K ans as w oul d be unr eas onabl e. 1. B ur den on D ef

endant s of Li t igat i ng i n the Forum- 19-

“The uni que bur dens pl ace d upon one w ho m us tdefe nd ones el f i n a for ei gn l egal s y s t em shoul d have s i gni fi cantw ei ghti n as s es s i ng the r eas onabl enes s of s tr et chi ng the l ong arm of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overnat i onal bor der s . ” A s ahi , 4 8 0 U .S . a t 1 1 4 . C o n se q u e n tly , “‘g re a t ca re a n d re se rv e sh o u ld b e e x e rc ise d ’ b e f o re p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n is e x e rc is e d o v e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t” in s u c h a s itu a tio n . O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1096 ( quot i ng A s ahi , 4 8 0 U .S . a t 1 1 5 ). B e c a u se th e In su re rs a re lo c a ted in E u ro p e , li tig a tin g a c a se in K a n sa s w o u ld s ubj ectthem t o s om e bur den. T he r ecor d does notcont ai n evi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthe In s u re rs c o n d u c t b u s in e s s in K a n s a s . See, e. g. , B enton , 375 F. 3d at1079 ( fi ndi ng bur den s i gni fi cantw hen C anadi an corpor at i on had no l i cens e t o conductbus i nes s i n the forum sta te o f C o lo ra d o , h a d n o o f

f ice o r p ro p e rtyin C o lo ra d o , an d h a d n o e m p lo y e e s in C o lo ra d o ); O M

I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1096 ( fi ndi ng bur den s i gni fi cantw hen C anadi an corpor at i ons had no l i cens e t o conductbus i nes s i n K ans as , m ai nt ai ned no o ff ices in K an sas, em p loy ed n o ag en ts i n K an sas, an d insu red n o K an sas re side n ts) . In a d d iti o n to tra v e lin g to K a n sa s, th e In su re rs w o u ld “ a lso b e f o rc e d to lit ig a te th e d isp u te in a for ei gn forum unfami l i arw i th the . . . l aw governi ng the di s put e. ” Id . A s T H A N ar gues , how ever , “moder n tr ans por t at i on and comm uni cat i ons have m ade i tm uch l es s bur dens om e fora partys ued t o defe nd hi m s el f i n a St at e w her e he e n g a g e s in e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity.” B ur gerK i ng , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 4 7 4 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Indeed , as the D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd , the Insurer s ar e l arge com pan i es enga ged i n b usi ness on a w or l dw i de bas i s , and manyof them ar e r out i nel yi nvol ved i n l i t i gat i on thr oughoutT he part i es di s put e w hetherfede r al l aw orthe l aw of the N ether l ands governs 4 in terp re tatio n o f

th e P ro g ra m m e ’s f

o ru m se lec tio n c lau se . B u t th is d isp u te is u n re late d to th e in te rp re ta tio n o f

th e re m a in d e r o f

th e c o n tr a c t, w h ic h is g o v e rn e d b yD u tc h la w . T H A N has pr es ent ed no ar gum entt o s ugges tthatD ut ch l aw does notgovern the re m a in d e r o f

th e c o n tr a c t.

- 20- th e U n ite d S ta te s . C

f . P r o A xes s , I

nc. , 428 F. 3d at1280 ( fi ndi ng that , al though Fr ench c o rp o ra tio n w a s a “ su b sta n tial d ista n c e ” f ro m th e f o ru m sta te o f

U tah , the c o rp o ra te presi den t ’s dem on strat ed ab i l i tyt o tr avel t o the U nit ed S t at es for com pan y ’s bu si ness d e a lin g s m in im ize d c o n c e rn s th a t li tig a tin g in U tah m a yb u rd e n c o rp o ra tio n ). B u t w h ile m odern advanc es m aym i ni m i ze the bur den on the I ns ur er s , theyar e nots i gni fi cant enough t o t i p the s cal es i n f avoro f e x e rc isin g ju risd ictio n . O n b a lan c e , the re f o re , this f a c t o rd o e s n o tw e i g h i n f a v o ro f e i th e rp a r ty. 2 . Fo ru m S ta te’s In ter e st in A d ju d ica tin gth e D isp u te “St at es have a n i m por t anti nt er es ti n pr ovi di ng a forum i n w hi ch thei rr es i dent s can s eek r edr es s fori nj ur i es caus ed byout - of- s t at e ac t or s . ” O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at 1096. B eca us e TH A N i s a K ans as r es i dent , K ans as has an i nt er es ti n pr ovi di ng the co rpo rati o n a f

o rum fo r i ts suit . In a d d it ion , “[ t] h e state’s interest i s . . . im p li ca ted w h ere r es ol ut i on of the di s put e r equi r es a gene r al appl i cat i on of the forum s t at e’ s l aw s . ” I d. In the pr es entcas e, the pol i ci es expl i ci t l ys t at e thatthe l aw governi ng the contr acti s the l aw of the N ether l ands . D ut ch l aw w i l l ther efor e govern the s ubj ectof the di s put e— the 4 in terp re tatio n o f

th e in su ra n c e p o licie s. H e n c e , K a n sa s’s in ter e st in p ro v id in g a f o ru m is o ff set b ythe f

ac t th at D u tch law w il l go v ern the d ispu te. T h is fac tor d o es n o t th ere fo reT H A N a lso a ss e rts th a t K a n sa s h a s a n in ter e st in th is liti g a tio n b e c a u se it af f e c ts 5 K a n sa s re sid e n ts w ith c laim s a g a in st T H A N f o r a lleg e d a sb e sto s e x p o su re . B u t th is

- 21- w e i g h i n f

a v o ro f e i th e rp a r ty. T H A N a rg u e s th a t th is f a c to r sh o u ld w e ig h in f

a v o r o f e x e rc isin g ju risd ictio n in K ans as beca us e s t at es have a s ubs t ant i al i nt er es ti n ens ur i ng thatthei rci t i zens r ece i ve bar gai ned- fori ns ur ance pr ocee ds . T H A N s uppor t s i t s ar gum entbyci t i ng McG ee v . I nt er nat i onalLi

f e I ns ur ance Co. , i n w hich the S up rem e C ou rtexp l ai ned that a s t at e has a

“ m a n if e st in ter e st in p ro v id in g e f f e c tiv e m e a n s o f

re d re ss f

o r its re sid e n ts w h e n th e ir insu rers ref

u se to p ayclaim s” a n d n o ted th at “[ t] h ese reside n ts w o u ld b e a t a sev ere d isa d v a n tag e if

th e yw e re f

o rc e d to f

o llo w th e in su ra n c e c o m p a n yto a d ista n t S tate in o rd e r to h o ld it l e g a llya c c o u n tab le.” 3 5 5 U .S . at 2 2 3 . B u t u n lik e T H A N , the p lain tiff in McG ee w a s a s in g le in d iv id u a l b e n e f ic ia ry o f a lif e in s u ra n c e p o lic y . I

d. at 22 2 . In e x p lain in g th e d isa d v a n tag e th a t in su re d re sid e n ts s u f f e r w h e n in su re rs a re n o t h e ld leg a lly acc ount abl e, the C our tnot ed that“w hen cl ai m s w er e s m al l orm oder at e[, ] i ndi vi dual cl ai m ant s fr equent l ycoul d notaff or d the cos tof br i ngi ng an ac t i on i n a for ei gn forum — thus , i n eff

ectm aki ng the companyj udgm entpr oof. ” I d. at223. T H A N has not show n thatsi m i l ar consi derat i on s applyi n thi s case. T o the con trary , T H A N i s a corpor at i on pr i m ar i l ydedi cat ed t o m anagi ng i t s ow n l i abi l i t i es , as w el l as thos e of aff i l i at ed compani es . I ndeed, T H A N i s al r eadyengage d i n l i t i gat i on i nvol vi ng the p o l i c i e s i n a n o th e rf

o ru m. W h ile w e d o n o t d e n yth a t K a n sa s h a s a n in ter e st in th is liti g a tio n , th a t in ter e st is 5i n t e r e s ti s “ l e s s c o mp e l l i n g ” th a n Ka n s a s ’ s i n t e r e s ti n p r o v i d i n g a f o ru m i n wh i c h T HAN, a K a n s a s re s id e n t, m a ylitig a te its d is p u te w ith a f o re ig n a c to r. See OM

I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 1 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 6 (“ A lth o u g h les s c o m p e lli n g , a s tate m a ya lso h a v e a n in ter e st in a d ju d ica tin g a d isp u te b e tw e e n tw o n o n -re sid e n ts w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t af

f e c ts forum r es i dent s . ”) . I n addi t i on, as the D i s tr i ctC our tfound, T H A N has nots how n how the curr entdi s put e w i l l aff ectforum r es i dent s ’ cl ai m s agai ns tT H A N foras bes t os - r el at ed in ju rie s. T h u s, in w e ig h in g th e f o ru m sta te’ s in ter e st in a d ju d ica tin g th e d isp u te, w e w ill notcons i derthe pot ent i al i m pactof thi s l aw s ui ton forum r es i dent s s eeki ng t o r ecove r f r o m T HAN.

- 22- o f f se t b yth e f

a c t th a t D u tch law g o v e rn s th e c o n tra c t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t, ov e ra ll, th is f a c to r d o e s n o t w e ig h in f a v o r o f e ith e r p a rt y . See, e. g. , B enton , 375 F. 3d at1079 (c o n c lu d in g f

a c to r d o e s n o t w e ig h in f a v o r o f e ith e r p a rtyw h e n p lain tiff w a s f o ru m sta te reside n t bu t dispu te w as g o v ern ed b yC an ad ian law ). 3. P lai nt i

f f’s I nt er es ti n C onveni ent

and E f f ect i ve Rel i ef T he thi r d fac t oreval uat es w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff mayr ece i ve conve ni entand e f f e c tiv e re lie f

in a n o th e r f

o ru m . O M

I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1097. “Thi s fac t orm ay w ei gh heavi l yi n cas es w her e a Pl ai nt i ff’ s chanc es of r ecove ryw i l l be gr eat l ydi m i ni s hed byfor ci ng hi m t o l i t i gat e i n anotherforum beca us e of thatforum ’ s l aw s orbeca us e the bur den maybe s o overw hel m i ng as t o pr act i cal l yfor ecl os e pur s ui tof the l aw s ui t . ” I d. W e c o n c l u d e th a tTHAN c a n g e tc o n v e n i e n ta n d e f f e c t i v e r e l i e f

i n a n o th e rf

o ru m, the N ether l ands . T H A N qui t e cl ear l yi s notfor ecl os ed fr om l i t i gat i ng the i ns ur ance c o v e ra g e in th e N e th e rla n d s. In f a c t, i t is a lre a d ye n g a g e d in lit ig a tin g th a t q u e stio n w ith tw el ve of the thi r t een D efe ndant s . T he onl yi ns ur ance companynota partyt o the N ether l ands l i t i gat i on, X L I ns ur ance C om pany , i ndi cat ed i n an af fi davi tthati tw oul d notI n t he N ether l ands act i on, the I ns ur er s s eek a decl ar at oryj udgm entthatthey 6 law fu ll yresc ind ed the p o li cies a n d are n o t l iable to p ayT H A N u n d er tho se p o li cies. In the e v en t th at th e c o u rtrules tha t th eyd id n o t l aw fu ll yresc ind the p o li cies, th e In su rers have a s ked the courtt o det erm i ne w hetherthe as bes t os cl ai m s ar e cove r ed underthe po l i ci es’ t erm s.

- 23- obj ectt o j ur i s di ct i on i n the N ether l ands . I ndeed, the pol i ci es cont ai n choi ce- of- l aw and forum - s el ect i on cl aus es thats t at e thatanydi s put e w i l l be governed bythe l aw of the N ether l ands and thatal l part i es t o t he pol i ci es s hal l s ubm i tt o the j ur i s di ct i on of the N e th e rl a n d s . T H A N c a n th e re f o re jo in a ll n e c e s s a ry p a rt ie s in th e N e th e rl a n d s . Fur therm or e, as the D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved, T H A N ’ s br eac h- of- contr actcl ai m for f a i l u r e t o p a yu n d e rth e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s n e c e s s a r i l yi n v o l v e s r e s o l u t i o n o f th e s a me i s s ues as thos e i nvol ved i n t he N ether l ands act i on: w hetherthe i ns ur ance compani es eff ect i vel yr es ci nded thei rpol i ci es and w hetherthe as bes t os cl ai m s ar e cove r ed undert he pol i ci es . T hus , the s ame ques t i on i s ati s s ue i n the now pendi ng N ether l ands act i on and

6 th e lit ig a tio n h e re . T H A N is le ss lik e lyto re c e iv e c o n v e n ien t an d e f f e c tiv e re lief

if it litig a te s th e s a m e q u e s tio n in tw o s e p a ra te f o ru m s ri s k in g p o s s ib ly co n tr a d ic to ry re s u lts . A c c o rd in g to T H A N , h o w e v e r, th e e x e rc ise o f ju risd ictio n in K a n sa s w ill n o t re su lt in d u p lica tiv e o r c o n f

lictin g lit ig a tio n , w h ich w o u ld b e b u rd e n so m e a n d in e f f icie n t f o r a ll part i es . T H A N ar gues that , unt i l the i s s ue of r es ci s s i on i s adj udi cat ed, a contr actof i ns ur ance r emai ns i n eff ectand the dutyt o paydefe ns e cos t s i s enfor cea bl e. T he K ans as act i on, T H A N ar gues , i nvol ves the fa i l ur e t o paydefe ns e cos t s , w hi l e the N ether l ands act i on i nvol ves the s epar at e ques t i on of r es ci s s i on; acc or di ng t o T H A N , thi s pr ecl udes t heT hes e ca s es ar e di s t i ngui s habl e foranotherr eas on. I n eac h cas e, the courtnot ed 7 thatthe i ns ur er ’ s dutyt o payunderthe i ns ur ance pol i cyw as cont empora neous w i th the in s u re d ’s o b lig a tio n to p a y . I n r e W or ldC om , 3 5 4 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 6 4 ; R igas , 38 2 F. Supp. 2d at700. G ener al l y , an i ndemni typol i cycr eat es an obl i gat i on t o r ei m bur s e an a lr e a d ys a tis f

ie d lo s s , ra th e r t h a n a c o n te m p o ra n e o u s d u ty to p a y . I n r e Wo r ld Co m, 354 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 6 4 (“ It is a g e n e ra l p rin c ip le u n d e r in su ra n c e law , tha t th e o b lig a tio n to p a yu n d e r a liab ili typ o licya rise s a s s o o n a s th e in su re d in c u rs th e liab ili tyf o r th e lo ss , in con tras tt o an i nd em nitypo l i cyw here the o bli gati on i s t o rei m bu rs e t he insur ed fo r a l oss thatthe i ns ur ed has al r eadys at i s fi ed. ”) . U nderthe pol i ci es i n the pr es entcas e, the I ns ur er s agr ee t o i ndemni fyi ns ur ed ent i t i es forcover ed l os s es , r atherthan l i abi l i t i es . T he d u ty t o p a y i s n o t , th e r e f o r e , c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i th th e i n s u r e d ’ s o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y.

- 24- fi ndi ng thatthe l i t i gat i on i n t he N ether l ands and K ans as w i l l be the s ame. B uti n m aki ng thi s ar gum ent , T H A N m i s i nt erpr et s the l aw . T he ca s es i tci t es deal w i th i ns ur ance com pan i es’ ob l i gati on s t o m ake p aym ents w hi l e the r es cis s i on ques t i on is pendi ng b ef o re th e c o u rt . See I

n r e W or ldC om , I

nc. Sec. Li t ig. , 3 5 4 F . S u p p . 2 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 5 ( S . D. N. Y. 2 0 0 5 ); A s s oc. E l ec. & G as I ns . Ser vs . , Ltd. v. R igas , 382 F. Supp. 2d 685, 691 ( E . D . Pa. 2004) . W hi l e the courtover s eei ng thi s l i t i gat i on m ayi m pos e upon the I ns ur er s the

7 ob l i gati on t o m ake p aym ents for the asbe st os cl ai m s u n til th e re sc iss io n q u e stio n is deci ded, thi s does notchange the fa ctthatthe s ame r es ci s s i on ques t i on m us tul t i m at el ybe d e c id e d in b o th th e N e th e rl a n d s litig a tio n a n d th e K a n s a s litig a tio n . T H A N h a s a ls o f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e la w o f th e N e th e rl a n d s w o u ld p re ju d ic e it. T H A N cl ai m s thatthe D ut ch courtcannotpos s i bl yunder s t and orappr eci at e the r eal i t i es o f th e tort sy stem in the U n it ed S tat es. F o r ex am p le, ac co rdin g to T H A N , a D u tch c o u rt w o u ld b e u n f

a m ili a r w ith im p o rta n t co n c e p ts, su c h a s th e re a so n a b len e ss o f d e f e n se c o sts a n d s e t t l e me n t s i n th e c o n t e x to f a s b e s t o s p e r s o n a l i n

j u rya c t i o n s . We th i n k T HAN- 25-

u n d e re stim a tes b o th th e D u tch c o u rt’s a n d its o w n a b ili ties . T H A N is u n d o u b ted ly c a p a b le o f

p re se n tin g o b

jec tiv e e v id e n c e o f

th e c o st o f

a sb e sto s litig a tio n a n d se ttl e m e n t to the court , and the courti s capa bl e of e val uat i ng thatevi dence . Fi nal l y , the r ecor d does noti ndi cat e thatT H A N ’ s bur den of l i t i gat i ng i t s cas e i n t he N e th e rl a n d s m a yb e s o o v e rw h e lm in g a s to p ra c tic a lly f o re c lo s e p u rs u it o f

th e la w s u it. T H A N cl ai m s thatthe “ove r w hel m i ng m aj or i ty ” of the document s and w i tnes s es nece s s aryt o t r ythi s cas e ar e i n t he U ni t ed St at es , i n l ar ge parti n K ans as . W e ar e not c o n v in c e d th a t th e lo c a tio n o f so m e e v id e n c e in K a n sa s, o r th e U n ited S tate s g e n e ra lly , is s u f f i c i e n tt o p r a c t i c a l l y f

orecl ose l i t i gat i on el s ew her e. T H A N ’ s ar gum enti gnor es the fa ct thatr el evantw i tnes s es and document s ar e l ocat ed i n the N ether l ands as w el l . R es ol vi ng w hetherthe as bes t os cl ai m s ar e cove r ed and w hetherthe I ns ur er s r es ci nded the contr act w i l l l i kel yr equi r e evi dence of the contr actnegot i at i ons and the part i es ’ i nt ent

— evi dence thati s avai l abl e fr om Phi l i ps i n the N ether l ands , A O N N eder l and i n the N ether l ands , and th e In s u re rs , s e v e ra l o f

w h ic h a re lo c a te d in th e N e th e rl a n d s . C f . O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F . 3d at10 97 (concl ud i ng plai nti ff co uld obtai n eff ect i ve rel i ef i n an otherforum against defe nd ant C anad i an co rporat i on despit e plai nti ff’s cont enti on that K ansas w as the m ost eff i ci entforum ; of ni nety - fourw i tnes s es w hos e t es t i m onyw as r el evantt o r es ol vi ng the di s put e, onl ys even w er e fr om K ans as , for ty - tw o w er e fr om others t at es , and forty - fi ve w er e fr om C anada ) . O n the w hol e, beca us e TH A N m ayobt ai n conveni entand ef fec t i ve rel i ef i n the N et herl and s, this fact or w ei gh s agai nstthe ex erci se of j uri sdi ct i on i n K ansas. 4. I nt ers tat e Judi ci alSys t em ’s I nt er es ti n O btai ni ng E

f f i ci ent R es ol ut i on- 26-

T h e f o u rth f a c to r a sk s “ w h e th e r th e f o ru m sta te is th e m o st e f f icie n t p lac e to lit ig a te the di s put e. ” O M

I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1097. “K eyt o thi s i nqui ryar e the l ocat i on of w i tnes s es , w her e the w r ong under l y i ng the l aw s ui toccurr ed, w hatforum ’ s s ubs t ant i ve l aw governs the ca s e, and w hetherj ur i s di ct i on i s nece s s aryt o pr eventpi ece m eal l i t i gat i on. ” I

d. (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T H A N ar gues thatal l of the w i tnes s es r el evantt o the as bes t os l i t i gat i on ar e l ocat ed i n the U ni t ed St at es and manyof them ar e i n K ans as . Speci fi cal l y , T H A N as s ert s thatt he c o u r twi l l h a v e t o d e t e r mi n e th e a mo u n to f d e f e n s e c o s t s a n d i n d e mn i tyo we d t o T HAN, w h ich m a yre q u ire tes tim o n yf ro m c u rre n t an d f

o rm e r T H A N e m p lo y e e s lo c a ted in K ans as and under l y i ng defe ns e couns el l ocat ed i n K ans as . Fi r s t , w e w i l l notcons i der ar gum ent s t hatthe U ni t ed St at es gener al l yi s the bett erforum t o fi nd i n favorof l i t i gat i on i n K ans as ; T H A N m us ts how thatK ans as s peci fi cal l yi s the mosteff i ci entforum . A nd s e c o n d , a s n o te d a b o v e , T H A N f a ils to re c o g n iz e a ll o f

th e w itn e s s e s re le v a n t to th e c a s e . B efore a cou rtcan d et erm i ne h ow m uch i nd em nitythe Insurer s ow e T H A N , i tm ustfi rs t decide w hethertheyow e T H A N i nd em nityatal l . In ot her w ords, the co urtm ust d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e a s b e s to s c la im s a re c o v e re d e v e n ts u n d e r t h e in s u ra n c e p o lic ie s . T he r el evantw i tnes s es forthi s ques t i on ar e thos e w ho negot i at ed and e nt er ed i nt o the con tract , nam el ythe Insurer s and P hil i ps, no ne o f w ho m are l ocated i n K ansas and atl east h a lf o f w h o m a re re s id e n ts o f

o r h a v e th e irp ri n c ip a l p la c e o f b u s in e s s in th e N e th e rl a n d s . F u rth e rm o re , o th e r c o n sid e ra tio n s m a k e K a n sa s a n in e f f icie n t p lac e to lit ig a te th is d i s p u t e . Al th o u g h th e a l l e g e d wr o n g , th e I n s u r e r s ’ f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e t o T HAN,T H A N a rg u e s th a t w e sh o u ld g iv e th e a p p lica tio n o f f o re ig n law little w e ig h t, 8 ci t i ng ourdeci s i on i n R i vende l lFor es tP r oduct s , Ltd. v. C anadi an P aci f i c Ltd. , 2 F. 3d 990, 994 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . I n R ive n d e ll , h o w e v e r, w e w e re c o n c e rn e d w ith a n e n tirely di ffe r enti s s ue: w hen a c our tm aydi s m i s s a ca s e bas ed on f or um non conve ni ens . We hel d thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdi s m i s s ed a c as e on gr ounds of f or um non conve ni ens beca us e i t s deci s i on w as bas ed l ar gel yon the fa ctthatfor ei gn l aw a p p lie d to th e d is p u te . I d. O urj ur i s di ct i onal i nqui ryunderthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i s , of cour s e, di ffe r entfr om the di s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i on of f or um non conve ni ens . For purpos es of the j ur i s di ct i onal i nqui ry , w e have neveri ndi cat ed thatthe appl i cat i on of forei gn l aw shou l d b e given l ess w ei gh tthan othercon si derat i on s.

- 27- occurr ed i n K ans as , D ut ch l aw w i l l govern the di s put e. M or eover , T H A N need not 8 l i t i gat e the ac t i on i n K ans as t o avoi d pi ece m eal l i t i gat i on. I n fac t , as di s cus s ed above , l i t i gat i ng the ac t i on i n K ans as w oul d s erve onl yt o c re a te pi ece m eal l i t i gat i on and perhaps even c ontr aryj udgm ent s . O ver al l , ther efor e, thi s fac t orw ei ghs agai ns texer ci s i ng j uri sdi ct i on i n K ansas. 5. Stat e’s I

nt er es ti n Fur ther i ng Fundam entalSubs tant i ve Soc i alP ol i ci es T he fi fth fac t orof the r eas onabl enes s i nqui ry“foc us es on w hetherthe exe r ci s e of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on by[the forum s t at e] aff ect s the s ubs t ant i ve s oci al pol i cyi nt er es t s of others t at es orfor ei gn nat i ons . ” O M I H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 1 4 9 F . 3 d a t1 0 9 7 . “ [ T] h e S u p r e me C our thas caut i oned that‘ gr eatcar e and r es erve s houl d be exe r ci s ed w hen ext endi ng our not i ons of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i nt o the i nt ernat i onal fi el d. ’ ” I d. at1097–98 ( quot i ng A s ahi , 480 U . S. at115) . W e mustther efor e l ook cl os el yatthe ext entt o w hi ch the e x e rc is e o f

p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n in te rf e re s w ith th e N e th e rl a n d s ’ s o v e re ig n ty. I d. R el evantcons i der at i ons i ncl ude “w hetherone of the part i es i s a ci t i zen of the for ei gn nat i on, w hetherthe for ei gn nat i on’ s l aw governs the di s put e, and w hetherthe for ei gn- 28-

nat i on’ s ci t i zen c hos e t o conductbus i nes s w i th a forum r es i dent . ” I d. at1098 ( ci t at i ons o m itted). I n l i ghtof thes e cons i der at i ons , w e conc l ude thatexer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on i n K ans as w ou l d int erfer e w i th D utch soverei gn ty . A l tho ug h the I nsurer s chose t o co nd uct busi ness w i th T H A N byi s s ui ng pol i ci es pr ovi di ng cover age t o Phi l i ps ’ s s ubs i di ar i es , i ncl udi ng T H A N , none of the I ns ur er s ar e K ans as r es i dent s , and fi ve ar e r es i dent s of the N et herl and s. F urtherm ore, the law of the N et herl and s w i l l go vern t his dis pu t e. In these r es pect s , the ci r cumst ance s of the pr es entcas e ar e qui t e s i m i l art o thos e i n O M I H oldi ngs, I nc. , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hatthe exe r ci s e of pe r s onal j ur i s di ct i on overC anadi an c o rp o r a t i o n s w o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i th C a n a d a ’ s s o v e r e i g n ty: E x e rc isin g p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n in K a n sa s w o u ld a f f e c t th e p o licyin ter e sts o f C a n a d a . D e f

e n d a n ts a re C a n a d ian c o rp o ra tio n s. T h e ye n ter e d in to in s u ra n c e c o n tr a c ts in C a n a d a , w ith P la in tif f ’s C a n a d ia n p a re n t c o m p a n y . T h e c o n tra c ts a re g o v e rn e d b yC a n a d ian law . M o re o v e r, w h e n ju risd ictio n is exer ci s ed overa for ei gn ci t i zen r egar di ng a contr actent er ed i nt o i n the for ei gn countr y , the countr y ’ s s over ei gn i nt er es ti n i nt erpr et i ng i t s l aw s and re s o lv in g d is p u te s in v o lv in g its c itiz e n s is im p lic a te d . I d. ; s ee al s o B enton , 3 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 0 8 0 (h o ld in g th a t th e e x e rc ise o f ju risd ictio n w o u ld aff ectC anada ’ s pol i cyi nt er es t s beca us e the def endantw as a C anadi an corpor at i on and C a n a d ian law w o u ld g o v e rn th e d isp u te) . W h ile w e re c o g n ize th a t “p o ss ib le c o n f lict w ith a f o re ig n n a tio n ’s s o v e re ig n tyis n o t d isp o sitiv e b e c a u se , if g iv e n c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t, i t w oul d al w ay s pr events ui tagai ns ta for ei gn nat i onal i n a U ni t ed St at es court , ” O MI H oldi ngs , I

nc. , 149 F. 3d at1097 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) , w e fi nd that , over al l , thi s fac t or w e ig h s a g a in s t th e e x e rc is e o f ju ri s d ic tio n in K a n s a s .- 29-

I n s um , thr ee of

the fi ve r eas onabl enes s fac t or s w ei gh i n favorof the I ns ur er s and agai ns texer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on i n K ans as . I n addi t i on, the tw o fac t or s thatdo notw ei gh ag ains t th e e x erc ise o f ju ri sd ict ion also d o n o t w eigh in it s fa v o r. E v en tho u g h m o d ern t echnol ogyand the w or l dw i de natur e of the I ns ur er s ’ bus i nes s m i ni m i ze the bur den of l i t i gat i ng i n a for ei gn forum , theydo notcompl et el yr emove t he bur den. A nd al though K a n sa s h a s a n in ter e st in p ro v id in g a f o ru m f o r re so lu tio n o f

its re sid e n t’s d isp u te, th is fac t orul t i m at el ydoes notw ei gh i n favorof the exe r ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the l aw of the N ether l ands , notK ans as , w i l l govern the di s put e. B eca us e the I ns ur er s have l i m i t ed cont act s w i th K ans as , theyneed notm ake a s tr ong s how i ng of unr eas onabl enes s t o defe at per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude thatthe exe r ci s e of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overthe I ns ur er s w oul d vi ol at e tr adi t i onal not i ons of fa i rpl ayand s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce. I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe fo r e go i ng r e a s on s , w e A FFI RM the D i s tr i c tCour t ’ s rul i ng a nd D I SM I SS T H A N ’ s appea l . W e al s o G R A N T the I ns ur er s ’ m ot i on r eques t i ng thatthi s C our tt ake j udi ci al not i ce of

the “St at ement s of D efe nce” fi l ed on A pr i l 26, 2006, i n the D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r A m s te rd a m , th e N e th e rl a n d s . S ee S t. L o u is B a p tist Te m p le, Inc . v. F

D IC , 605 F .2 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 7 9 ) (n o tin g th a t “f e d e ra l co u rts, in a p p ro p ria te ci r cumst ance s , m ayt ake not i ce of pr ocee di ngs i n othercourt s , both w i thi n and w i thoutt he fe d era l j u d ici al sy stem , if th o se p roc ee d ing s h av e a d ir ec t r elati o n to m att ers a t i ssu e” ).