Opinion ID: 2634874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Transaction of Business Requirement

Text: ¶ 21 Pohl also argues that the long-arm statute applies to the defendants because they transacted business in Utah. The legislature broadly defined the transaction of business within this state as the activities of a nonresident person, his agents, or representatives in this state, which affect persons or businesses within the state. [29] Pohl argues that the use of Pohl panels on the Project required the defendants to communicate with Pohl through a series of letters and faxes regarding the dimensions and specifications of the panels, and that these communications constitute the transaction of business and bring the defendants within the reach of the long-arm statute. Pohl's argument seems to rely on two underdeveloped theories. First, these communications affected Pohl because in response to the scheduling demands imposed by Bret Miller, ISME and Webelhuth, Pohl contracted with its parent company in Germany to fabricate the panels and arranged for air freight from Germany. Second, TAB acted as an agent or a representative for Bret Miller, ISME and Webelhuth because TAB's communications with Pohl made the procurement of the panels possible and the panels were necessary to complete the project. ¶ 22 The court of appeals rejected Pohl's argument, concluding that the plain language of the statute requires that at least some activities must occur within Utah. [30] While we believe that this requirement is more properly recognized as a due process limitation, we agree with the result reached by the court of appeals because we do not believe that the defendants purposefully directed their efforts toward conducting business in Utah. [31] To the contrary, it appears that the defendants purposefully avoided conducting business in Utah by hiring TAB as a subcontractor responsible for hiring Pohl. While Pohl may be able to satisfy minimum contacts by showing that TAB acted as an agent or a representative of the defendants in Utah, Pohl has not developed this argument beyond a statement of facts suggesting this type of relationship. Because the agency argument was not thoroughly developed, and because we conclude that Pohl can satisfy the long-arm statute based on the tortious injury requirement, we need not, and do not, decide whether the facts alleged by Pohl are sufficient to support a finding that defendants transacted business in Utah.