Opinion ID: 1370556
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Missouri Long-Arm Statute

Text: Missouri's long-arm statute provides in relevant part: 1. Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any corporation, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this section, thereby submits such person, firm, or corporation, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: . . . . (3) The commission of a tortious act within this state § 506.500.1(3). Section 506.500 is construed to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of this state over nonresident defendants to that extent permissible under the Due Process clause. State ex rel. Deere, 454 S.W.2d at 892. [E]xtraterritorial acts that produce consequences in the state, such as fraud, are subsumed under the tortious act section of the long-arm statute. Longshore v. Norville, 93 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App.2002); Schwartz & Assocs. v. Elite Line, Inc., 751 F.Supp. 1366, 1369 (E.D.Mo.1990) (allegation of extraterritorial tortious act that yields consequences in state is sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Missouri long-arm statute). Here, Mr. Bryant alleges that, by sending false and misleading documents to him in Missouri and by misrepresenting or concealing in subsequent contacts by telephone, e-mail and letter that its commission rates were far in excess of those generally charged in the industry, defendants committed fraudulent and misleading acts in Missouri that subject them to jurisdiction here for claims arising out of those acts. Mr. Bryant's allegations are sufficient to demonstrate the commission of a tortious act within this state and to place Smith Interior within the reach of Missouri's long-arm statute.