Opinion ID: 807082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Missouri Long-Arm Statute

Text: The basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over a non-resident party in Missouri is Missouri's long-arm statute. The statute provides: 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[.] -5- ... Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500. Missouri courts have interpreted subsection (3) to include extraterritorial acts of negligence producing actionable consequences in Missouri. State ex rel. William Ranni Assocs., Inc. v. Hartenbach, 742 S.W.2d 134, 139 (Mo. 1987). Missouri courts are split on whether an extraterritorial tort must be deliberately designed to enter into Missouri. Compare Nelson v. R. Greenspan & Co., Inc., 613 F. Supp. 342, 345 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (finding long-arm statute was satisfied when [defendant] sets in motion a course of action deliberately designed to move into the forum state in order to injure plaintiff's business), with Noble v. Shawnee Gun Shop, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 364, 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (applying a foreseeability standard to extraterritorial torts, not a deliberate design standard). The Missouri Supreme Court does not apply the deliberate design requirement. See Bryant, 310 S.W.3d at 231-32 (finding personal jurisdiction existed in negligent misrepresentation case without applying deliberately designed standard). Casino Queen contends that when a tortious act occurs in another state with actionable consequences in Missouri, that act must be deliberately designed to enter Missouri for it to fall within the scope of Missouri's long-arm statute. Casino Queen relies on the holding in Hollinger v. Sifers, 122 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003), to support this position. In Hollinger, a Missouri patient sued her Kansas doctor in Missouri state court for medical malpractice and negligent misrepresentation. The court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the single act of appearing in a televised interview (the defendant's only contact with Missouri) was too attenuated to satisfy the Missouri long-arm statute. Hollinger, 122 S.W.3d at 117. Conversely, Myers argues the decision in Noble controls. Noble involved a Missouri resident's negligence action against a Kansas gun store. The plaintiff alleged the gun store was negligent in the sale of firearm accessories used in a shooting in -6- Missouri. An action was brought in Missouri and was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The gun store argued its activities were not directed at Missouri, thus making the exercise of personal jurisdiction by Missouri inappropriate. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, finding it was neither necessary nor prudent to apply the standard of deliberate design to negligence actions. Noble, 316 S.W.3d at 372. The Noble court analogized to dram shop cases in other states and noted: [T]he courts in these dram shop cases and others found that the fact that these businesses were located near the border and, in some cases, advertised to residents on both sides of the border, meant that the businesses knew or should have known (although the courts did not analyze their decisions using this wording) that their customers were likely to cross the border after patronizing the businesses. Therefore, it would be foreseeable that a sale originating from their businesses could have consequences in the neighboring state. We find that this standard is appropriate for determining whether the alleged cross-bordernegligence of a defendant falls under Missouri's long-arm statute. Id. Our review of Noble and Hollinger, as well as the Missouri Supreme Court's refusal to apply the deliberate design standard, lead us to believe foreseeability is the standard to be applied when evaluating whether jurisdiction is appropriate over a tortious act occurring in another state with actionable consequences in Missouri. If a defendant can reasonably foresee his or her negligent actions having consequences felt in Missouri, jurisdiction is authorized. We also acknowledge that the showing required of a plaintiff in a provision of service case may be greater than a case involving a product. See Hollinger, 122 S.W.3d at 117 (Where a non-resident defendant is engaged in providing a service, as opposed to providing a product through the stream of commerce, the contact requirements for long-arm jurisdiction are more stringent.). -7- In the instant case, the plaintiff has shown a compelling basis for jurisdiction that meets the more stringent requirements. Casino Queen's actions prior to Myers's injuries indicate it could foresee, and took steps to prevent against, the kind of injuries that Myers suffered. Casino Queen had a policy of protecting customers who had won substantial sums of money, even going as far as to provide an escort vehicle on the highway. Given Casino Queen's pervasive advertising directed at Missouri residents, Casino Queen knew that customers from Missouri patronized its casino and could have foreseen those customers would return to Missouri. Because it was foreseeable that Casino Queen's actions could have consequences felt in Missouri, jurisdiction is authorized under Missouri's long-arm statute.