Court Opinion

ID: 9931520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 14:06:27.829784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:38.970367
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/09/2024 08:06 AM CST

                                                        - 892 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        315 Nebraska Reports
                                         GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                                               Cite as 315 Neb. 892

                    John Edward Griffith II and Christina M. Griffith,
                         appellants, v. LG Chem America, Inc., and
                      Shoemaker’s Truck Station, Inc., doing business
                            as Shoemaker’s Shell Travel Center
                                and E-Titan, LLC, appellees.
                                                   ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed February 9, 2024.   No. S-22-840.

                 1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a
                    lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted
                    evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or
                    as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that
                    the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
                 2. ____: ____. An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of sum-
                    mary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable
                    to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that
                    party’s favor.
                 3. Motions to Dismiss: Jurisdiction: Pleadings: Evidence. When a trial
                    court relies solely on pleadings and supporting affidavits in ruling on a
                    motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need
                    only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to survive the motion.
                    However, if the court holds an evidentiary hearing on the issue or
                    decides the matter after trial, then the plaintiff bears the burden of dem-
                    onstrating personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
                 4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court examines the ques-
                    tion of whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case
                    of personal jurisdiction de novo.
                 5. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the grant of a
                    motion to dismiss, an appellate court must look at the facts in the light
                    most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts
                    in favor of that party.
                 6. Limitations of Actions: States. Nebraska has adopted the Uniform
                    Conflict of Laws Limitations Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-3201 through
                                      - 893 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      315 Nebraska Reports
                       GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                             Cite as 315 Neb. 892

      25-3207 (Reissue 2016). Under the act, if a claim is based on the sub-
      stantive law of Nebraska, then Nebraska’s statute of limitations will
      apply. If a claim is substantively based upon the law of another state,
      however, then the limitation period of the other state will apply.
 7.   Courts: Jurisdiction: States. Before entangling itself in messy issues
      of conflict of laws, a court ought to satisfy itself that there actually is a
      difference between the relevant laws of the different states.
 8.   Jurisdiction: States. In conflict-of-law analysis, an actual conflict
      exists when a legal issue is resolved differently under the law of two
      states.
 9.   Torts: Appeal and Error. To resolve conflicts of law that sound in
      tort law, courts apply the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws
      § 146 (1971).
10.   Jurisdiction: States. When there are no factual disputes regarding state
      contacts, conflict-of-law issues present questions of law.
11.   Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Personal jurisdiction is the power of
      a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions.
12.   Constitutional Law: Due Process: Jurisdiction. The Due Process
      Clause of the U.S. Constitution limits a state court’s power to exercise
      jurisdiction over a defendant. It protects an individual’s liberty interest
      in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he
      or she has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.
13.   Jurisdiction: States. The constitutional touchstone for personal juris-
      diction over a nonresident is whether the defendant purposefully estab-
      lished minimum contacts in the forum state.
14.   ____: ____. The minimum contacts requirement protects the defendant
      against litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum and ensures that
      states do not exceed the limits imposed by their status as coequal sover-
      eigns in a federal system.
15.   Jurisdiction. There are two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general
      (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes
      called case-linked) jurisdiction.
16.   ____. A state court may exercise general jurisdiction only when a
      defend­ant is essentially at home in the state.
17.   Jurisdiction: States. To be subject to specific personal jurisdiction of a
      state, a nonresident defendant must take some act by which it purpose-
      fully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the
      forum state, and the plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the
      defendant’s contacts with the forum.
18.   Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. The benchmark for determining if
      the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is whether the
                                      - 894 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      315 Nebraska Reports
                       GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                             Cite as 315 Neb. 892

      defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state are such that the
      defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
19.   ____: ____: ____. The analysis of whether the defendant’s minimum
      contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should reason-
      ably anticipate being haled into court there is not simply mechanical or
      quantitative, but requires that a court consider the quality and nature
      of the defendant’s activities to ascertain whether the defendant has the
      necessary minimum contacts with the forum to satisfy due process.
20.   Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. For specific personal jurisdiction,
      there must be a substantial connection between the defendant’s contacts
      with the forum state and the operative facts of the litigation.
21.   Jurisdiction: Time. The requisite minimum contacts must exist either
      at the time the cause of action arose, at the time the suit was filed, or
      within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the
      lawsuit.
22.   Jurisdiction: States. Contacts with the forum state unrelated to the
      action have no bearing on a specific personal jurisdiction analysis.
23.   ____: ____. It is essential to personal jurisdiction that in each case there
      be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the
      privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking
      the benefits and protections of its laws.
24.   ____: ____. There must be fair warning that a particular activity might
      subject the nonresident defendant to the jurisdiction of the foreign sov-
      ereign, giving a degree of predictability to the legal system by allowing
      potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some mini-
      mum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them
      liable to suit.
25.   ____: ____. Unilateral activity of a plaintiff who claims some relation-
      ship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of
      contact with the forum state.

  Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori
A. Maret, Judge. Affirmed.
  Christopher P. Welsh, of Welsh & Welsh, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellants.
  Mark A. Fahleson, of Rembolt Ludtke, L.L.P., for appellee
LG Chem America, Inc.
   Matthew V. Rusch, of Erickson | Sederstrom, P.C., L.L.O.,
for appellee Shoemaker’s Truck Station, Inc.
                             - 895 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
   Miller-Lerman, J.
                     NATURE OF CASE
   John Edward Griffith II purchased two lithium-ion
rechargeable batteries at a Shoemaker’s Shell Travel Center
store in Lincoln, Nebraska. Several months later, when he
was at his home in Sharpsville, Pennsylvania, the batteries
exploded and combusted in his pocket. John Griffith and his
spouse, Christina M. Griffith, filed suit in the district court
for Lancaster County, Nebraska, against LG Chem, Ltd., the
lithium-ion batteries’ South Korean manufacturer and dis-
tributor; LG Chem America, Inc. (LGCAI), the manufac-
turer’s American distributor; Shoemaker’s Truck Station, Inc.
(Shoemaker’s), the owners of the travel center; and E-Titan,
LLC, the owners of an electronic cigarette kiosk from which
the batteries were bought.
   LG Chem was dismissed for lack of service. The district
court determined, inter alia, that the Griffiths’ claims for neg-
ligence were not timely under Pennsylvania’s 2-year statute
of limitations for personal injury actions and granted sum-
mary judgment and dismissed all claims against Shoemaker’s
and E-Titan. Subsequently, the district court determined that
it lacked personal jurisdiction over LGCAI and dismissed
LGCAI. The Griffiths appeal. We affirm.
                   STATEMENT OF FACTS
   John Griffith purchased two 18650 lithium-ion recharge-
able battery cells (18650 batteries) on November 6, 2015,
from an electronic cigarette kiosk that was owned and oper-
ated by E-Titan and that was located inside the travel center
owned by Shoemaker’s. E-Titan is a Nebraska corporation
with its principal place of business in Grand Island, Nebraska.
Shoemaker’s is a Nebraska corporation with its principal
place of business in Lincoln. The Griffiths allege that the
18650 batteries were designed and manufactured by LG
                             - 896 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

Chem, a Korean corporation, and distributed by its American
subsidiary, LGCAI.
   On March 12, 2016, John Griffith was injured while replac-
ing two 18650 batteries in his electronic cigarette. He was
carrying the batteries in his pocket when they exploded and
burst into flames, resulting in serious burns to his body and
other permanent injuries.
   On June 27, 2019, the Griffiths filed suit against LG
Chem, LGCAI, Shoemaker’s, and E-Titan in Nebraska in the
district court for Lancaster County. The Griffiths claimed
negligence, products liability (defective design and manu-
facturing defect), breach of warranty, and loss of consortium
by Christina Griffith. LG Chem was never served with sum-
mons in the district court and, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-217 (Reissue 2016), was dismissed as a matter of law in
December 2019.

Motion For Summary Judgment Against
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan.
   Shoemaker’s and E-Titan moved for summary judgment
on the basis that the Griffiths’ claims against them were
time barred under the 2-year limitation period provided by a
Pennsylvania statute of limitations regarding personal injury
actions. See 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524(2) (West
2019). In contrast, the Griffiths contended that Nebraska
law applied and that their negligence claims were timely
filed within Nebraska’s 4-year statute of limitations for per-
sonal injury actions. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-207(3) and
25-224(1) (Reissue 2016).
   On October 29, 2020, the district court determined that there
was an actual conflict between the laws of Pennsylvania and
those of Nebraska. The court noted that the Griffiths’ negli-
gence and loss of consortium claims would be barred under
Pennsylvania law, but not under Nebraska law. It determined
that the claims for negligence are substantively based on
Pennsylvania law and that Pennsylvania, as the state where
                              - 897 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 892

the injuries occurred, has the dominant interest in the matter
and the most significant relationship to the occurrence and
the parties. The district court noted that with respect to the
breach of warranty claims, the Griffiths conceded that there
were no genuine issues of material fact regarding those claims
as against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan. The court granted the
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan based on the Pennsylvania 2-year
statute of limitations.

Claims Against LGCAI and Challenge
to Personal Jurisdiction.
   In the complaint, the Griffiths alleged that the batteries were
designed and manufactured by LG Chem, a Korean corpora-
tion, and its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary, LGCAI,
a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Atlanta, Georgia. The complaint alleged that LG Chem is one
of the world’s leading manufacturers of lithium-ion recharge-
able batteries. The Griffiths further alleged that LG Chem
and LGCAI, either directly or indirectly or through a wholly
owned subsidiary, were engaged in the business of designing,
engineering, manufacturing, assembling, testing, inspecting,
providing with warnings and instructions, labeling, marketing,
distributing, selling, and otherwise putting into the stream of
commerce lithium-ion rechargeable batteries that were pur-
chased throughout the United States, including the State of
Nebraska. These lithium-ion rechargeable batteries included
the 18650 batteries that are the subject matter of the present
case. The complaint alleged that LGCAI is one of the principal
marketing, sales, and trading subsidiaries for LG Chem in the
United States.
   According to the record, LGCAI primarily sells and dis-
tributes various petrochemical materials and products, includ-
ing ABS resin, engineered plastic, rubbers, acrylate, super
absorbent polymer, and specialty polymers. LGCAI does not
have any manufacturing plants, and its business is focused on
                             - 898 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

sales and distribution. LGCAI uses a warehouse in Nebraska
to sell petrochemical materials and products but has never
sold or distributed any 18650 batteries in Nebraska. LGCAI
has never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or
sold any lithium-ion batteries for use by individual consumers
as standalone, replaceable rechargeable batteries in electronic
cigarettes or vaping devices. LGCAI has never conducted any
business with Shoemaker’s or E-Titan and has never autho-
rized Shoemaker’s or E-Titan to sell or distribute “LG-brand”
lithium-ion batteries for any purpose.
   In 2015, LGCAI had three customers located in Illinois or
Texas for the purchase of lithium-ion batteries, such as the
18650 batteries. When one of the customers issued a purchase
order for lithium-ion batteries, LGCAI would purchase the
product from LG Chem and then ship it directly to the cus-
tomer. LGCAI would issue an invoice to the customer, collect
payment from the customer, and pay LG Chem. LGCAI did
not facilitate the sale of batteries to customers in Nebraska or
facilitate the sale of batteries to individuals. LGCAI stopped
facilitating the sale of batteries after May 2016.
   LGCAI filed a special appearance and a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2) on the grounds
that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. On
October 17, 2022, after limited jurisdictional discovery and
a hearing at which the court received affidavits accompanied
by exhibits, the district court found that it lacked personal
jurisdiction over LGCAI. The district court acknowledged
that there was uncontroverted evidence that LGCAI rented
warehouse space in Lincoln to store petrochemical products,
LGCAI sold petrochemical products to at least two customers
in Nebraska, and LGCAI’s logistics team visited the ware-
house annually to check inventory. However, the district court
found that these contacts were insufficient to confer general
or special personal jurisdiction over LGCAI, because its deal-
ings in Nebraska related only to its petrochemical products,
not to the sale of 18650 batteries at issue in this case. LGCAI
                             - 899 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

does not have an office in Nebraska and has no relationship
with other companies in Nebraska other than those concern-
ing petrochemical sales.
   The district court first determined that the Griffiths did
not satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the court had
general jurisdiction over LGCAI because LGCAI’s activities
in the State of Nebraska are not substantial. With respect to
specific jurisdiction, it found that LGCAI had not purpose-
fully directed its activities to the residents of Nebraska or,
through its actions, purposefully availed itself of the privilege
of conducting activities in the state, thereby invoking the ben-
efits and protections of Nebraska laws. The court concluded
it lacked specific jurisdiction and could not exercise personal
jurisdiction over LGCAI.
   The Griffiths appeal.
                 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   The Griffiths claim, summarized and restated, that the dis-
trict court erred when it (1) applied the Pennsylvania statute
of limitations and granted summary judgment in favor of
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan on all claims and (2) dismissed
LGCAI as a party for lack of personal jurisdiction.
                  STANDARDS OF REVIEW
   [1,2] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of sum-
mary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to
the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Rose v. American Family Ins. Co., ante p. 302, 995 N.W.2d 650
(2023). An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reason-
able inferences in that party’s favor. Id.
   [3] When a trial court relies solely on pleadings and sup-
porting affidavits in ruling on a motion to dismiss for want
of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima
                               - 900 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                  GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 892

facie showing of jurisdiction to survive the motion. Central
States Dev. v. Friedgut, 312 Neb. 909, 981 N.W.2d 573 (2022).
However, if the court holds an evidentiary hearing on the issue
or decides the matter after trial, then the plaintiff bears the bur-
den of demonstrating personal jurisdiction by a preponderance
of the evidence. Id.
   [4] An appellate court examines the question of whether the
nonmoving party has established a prima facie case of personal
jurisdiction de novo. Id.
   [5] In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, an appel-
late court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor
of that party. Id.
                          ANALYSIS
   The Griffiths contend that the district court erred when it
determined that claims against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan were
time barred and granted the motion for summary judgment of
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan. The Griffiths also claim the district
court erred when it dismissed claims against LGCAI for lack
of personal jurisdiction. As discussed below, we find no merit
to these contentions and affirm the rulings of the district court
with respect to both issues raised in this appeal.
The District Court Did Not Err When It Granted Summary
Judgment in Favor of Shoemaker’s and E-Titan With
Respect to Negligence and Loss of Consortium
and Dismissed Claims Against Them.
   The Griffiths claim that the district court erred when it
applied Pennsylvania’s 2-year statute of limitations for neg-
ligence, 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524(2), and
determined that the Griffiths’ negligence and loss of con-
sortium claims against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan were time
barred. The district court granted summary judgment in favor
of Shoemaker’s and E-Titan and dismissed claims against
them. The Griffiths do not contest the portion of the order
that granted summary judgment in favor of Shoemaker’s and
                             - 901 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

E-Titan on their breach of warranty claims; only the rulings
regarding negligence and loss of consortium are before us in
this appeal.
   [6] Nebraska has adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws
Limitations Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-3201 through 25-3207
(Reissue 2016). Under the act, if a claim is based on the
substantive law of Nebraska, then Nebraska’s statute of limi-
tations will apply. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-3203(1)(b). If a
claim is substantively based upon the law of another state,
however, then the limitation period of the other state will
apply, including the other state’s relevant statutes and rules
governing tolling and accrual for computing the limitation
period. See §§ 25-3203(1)(a) and 25-3204. We agree with
the district court that the Griffiths’ negligence-related claims
against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan are substantively based on
Pennsylvania law and were barred by the 2-year limita-
tion period provided by 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann.
§ 5524(2).
   [7,8] We have stated that “before entangling itself in messy
issues of conflict of laws, a court ought to satisfy itself that
there actually is a difference between the relevant laws of
the different states.” In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 375,
848 N.W.2d 611, 622 (2014). An actual conflict exists when a
legal issue is resolved differently under the law of two states.
O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109, 903 N.W.2d
432 (2017).
   The parties submit, and we agree, that an actual conflict
exists between the laws of Nebraska and Pennsylvania in this
case. Pennsylvania limits actions involving personal injury to
those filed within 2 years after the cause of action accrues.
See 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524(2). In contrast,
Nebraska requires that personal injury actions be brought
within 4 years of the accrual of the cause of action. See
§§ 25-207(3) and 25-224(1). Because the Griffiths filed this
suit on June 27, 2019, more than 2 years after John Griffith
was injured on March 12, 2016, an actual conflict arises
                              - 902 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 892

because the negligence claims that would have been timely
under Nebraska law would be barred under Pennsylvania law.
   [9] When, as here, the action in which the conflict of law
arises sounds in tort law and alleges personal injury caused
negligently, we apply the general rule from the Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 at 430 (1971) that “the
local law of the state where the injury occurred determines
the rights and liabilities of the parties, unless, with respect to
the particular issue, some other state has a more significant
relationship.” The question of whether some other state has a
more significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties
will depend largely on whether some other state has a greater
interest in the determination of the particular issue than the
state where the injury occurred. Restatement, supra, § 146,
comment c.
   The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 at
414 (1971) sets forth what we have called the “most sig-
nificant relationship” test to determine whether a state other
than the one where the injury occurred has a more significant
relationship to the occurrence and the parties. See O’Brien v.
Cessna Aircraft Co., supra; Restatement (Second) of Conflict
of Laws § 6(2) (1971). Under the most significant relation-
ship test, the factors, or contacts, are “to be evaluated accord-
ing to their relative importance with respect to the particular
issue” and include: (a) the place where the injury occurred;
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorpora-
tion and place of business of the parties; and (d) the place
where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
Restatement, supra, § 145(2) at 414. We have emphasized
that under the most significant relationship test, courts should
not assign each contact equal weight and employ a mechani-
cal approach. See O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., supra. The
significance of each contact analyzed in § 145(2) is evaluated
according to the following principles relevant to the appli-
cable rule of law:
                               - 903 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                  GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 892

         (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
         (b) the relevant policies of the forum,
         (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and
      the relative interests of those states in the determination
      of the particular issue,
         (d) the protection of justified expectations,
         (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field
      of law,
         (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
         (g) ease in the determination and application of the law
      to be applied.
Restatement, supra, § 6(2) at 10. With tort claims, the more
relevant principles under § 6(2) tend to be subsections (a),
(b), (c), and (g). Restatement, supra, § 145, comment b. See
Malena v. Marriott International, 264 Neb. 759, 651 N.W.2d
850 (2002).
   The district court noted that there is no dispute in the record
that John Griffith was injured in Pennsylvania at his residence
while using 18650 batteries. In accordance with the presump-
tion that the law of the place of injury applies, the district
court placed greater significance on the contact between the
injury and Pennsylvania. See Restatement, supra, §§ 145(2)(a)
and 146.
   The district court next considered the remaining contacts
under § 145(2). With respect to the second consideration,
it found that that neither Pennsylvania nor Nebraska had a
particularly significant relationship with the conduct that
caused the injury, which it determined was the place where
the allegedly defective batteries were designed, marketed,
or manufactured. The Griffiths claim that the 18650 batter-
ies were sold out of E-Titan’s kiosk at Shoemaker’s travel
center in Nebraska, but there is no evidence that the 18650
batteries were designed and manufactured in Nebraska or
by Shoemaker’s or E-Titan. The complaint alleged that the
18650 batteries were designed and manufactured by LG
Chem, a Korean corporation with its principal executive
                             - 904 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

offices in South Korea, and LG Chem’s American subsidiary,
LGCAI. The 18650 batteries exploded when John Griffith
placed them in his pocket in Pennsylvania, causing them to
come into contact with each other.
   With respect to the third consideration, i.e., the importance
of the parties’ domicile, residence, nationality, place of incor-
poration, and place of business, the district court found that
Griffiths’ residence in Pennsylvania could be grouped with
the place of injury and was particularly likely to be the state
of applicable law. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of
Laws § 145, comment e. (1971).
   Analyzing the fourth factor in § 145(2), the district court
noted that before the batteries exploded and John Griffith was
injured, the parties lacked any prior relationship, as is often
typical with cases of personal injuries resulting from alleged
defective products. See, e.g., Crisman v. Cooper Industries,
748 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. App. 1988).
   Finally, the district court balanced the above factors with
the principles of conflicts of law and the policies of the
forum state and the other interested state, and their inter-
ests in determining the particular issues in the case. See
Restatement, supra, § 6. The court observed that Nebraska’s
only contact with the events giving rise to this case was
the purchase of the 18650 batteries. The district court noted
that Pennsylvania’s contacts are more substantial than those
of Nebraska. Pennsylvania was the state where the product
was being used at the time of the injury, the state where the
injury occurred, and the state where the Griffiths had a settled
relationship as residents. See Restatement, supra, § 146, com-
ment e. (explaining that law where injury occurred is more
likely to apply when injured person has settled relationship to
that state).
   Each state has a policy interest in applying its tort rules to
personal injury claims by residents who were injured within
its borders. See, Malena v. Marriott International, supra;
Restatement, supra, § 145 comment c. However, state tort
                             - 905 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

rules that limit liability are entitled to the same consideration
in the choice-of-law process as other states’ rules that impose
liability. Malena v. Marriott International, supra. Numerous
contacts in this case support Pennsylvania’s strong interest in
applying its tort rules, including its statute of limitations, to
the Griffiths’ personal injury action that, as we have noted,
was based on an incident occurring in Pennsylvania to one of
its residents. We agree with the district court’s determination
that Pennsylvania has the dominant interest in this matter and
has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and
the parties. Having found the claim was substantively based
in Pennsylvania, the district court found Pennsylvania law
should be applied. See § 25-3203(1)(a).
   [10] When there are no factual disputes regarding state con-
tacts, conflict-of-law issues present questions of law. Johnson
v. United State Fidelity & Guar. Co., 269 Neb. 731, 696
N.W.2d 431 (2005). There are no facts in dispute on the issue
of the limitation period applicable to the Griffiths’ personal
injury claims against Shoemaker’s and E-Titan in this case.
After reviewing the evidence in the record in a light most
favorable to the Griffiths, and applying the Restatement fac-
tors set forth above, we reject the Griffiths’ argument that
Nebraska has the dominant interest in the determination of the
statute of limitations issue.
   We agree with the district court that the significant contacts
between Pennsylvania and the Griffiths and their injuries favor
applying Pennsylvania law. Applying the Pennsylvania 2-year
statute of limitations provided by 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat.
Ann. § 5524(2), the Griffiths’ claims were untimely filed and
are time barred. The district court did not err when it granted
summary judgment in favor of Shoemaker’s and E-Titan and
dismissed them on this basis.
The District Court Correctly Ruled That It Lacked
Personal Jurisdiction Over LGCAI.
   LGCAI filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal juris-
diction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2). The district
                             - 906 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

court sustained the motion and dismissed LGCAI. The Griffiths
claim the district court erred in so ruling; we disagree.
   The Griffiths contend that the district court disregarded
certain activities by LGCAI that established specific per-
sonal jurisdiction. As we explain below, the Griffiths failed to
carry their burden to establish contacts between Nebraska and
LGCAI that sufficiently relate to their suit.
   [11] We begin by setting forward the applicable principles
of law. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to sub-
ject and bind a particular entity to its decisions. Wheelbarger
v. Detroit Diesel, 313 Neb. 135, 983 N.W.2d 134 (2023).
Nebraska’s long-arm statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue
2016), confers personal jurisdiction over nonresidents to the
fullest extent constitutionally permitted, so we must deter-
mine whether LGCAI had sufficient minimum contacts with
Nebraska so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial jus-
tice. See Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel, supra.
   [12-14] The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution
limits a state court’s power to exercise jurisdiction over a
defendant. See Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 209 L. Ed. 2d 225
(2021). It protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being
subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he
or she has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or rela-
tions. Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel, supra. The constitutional
touchstone for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident is
whether the defendant purposefully established minimum con-
tacts in the forum state. Id. The minimum contacts require-
ment protects the defendant against litigating in a distant or
inconvenient forum and ensures that states do not exceed the
limits imposed by their status as coequal sovereigns in a fed-
eral system. Id.
   [15,16] There are two kinds of personal jurisdiction: “gen-
eral (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific
(sometimes called case-linked) jurisdiction.” Ford Motor Co.
                              - 907 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                  GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 892

v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. at 1024. See
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S.
915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011). A state court
may exercise general jurisdiction only when a defendant is
“‘essentially at home’” in the state. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. at 1024. For a corpora-
tion, its place of incorporation and principal place of business
ordinarily establish general jurisdiction. Id. The Griffiths do
not claim that Nebraska may exercise general jurisdiction
over LGCAI. In any event, general jurisdiction is not sup-
ported by the record that shows, inter alia, that LGCAI is
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business
in Atlanta.
   [17] Specific jurisdiction (the only type at issue in this case)
covers defendants less intimately connected with a state, but
only as to a narrower class of claims. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, supra. Specific jurisdiction “is
different” from general jurisdiction and can be exerted over a
defendant only in a particular case. Id., 141 S. Ct. at 1024. As
discussed below, to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction,
a nonresident defendant must take some act by which it pur-
posefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities
within the forum state, and the plaintiff’s claims must arise
out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, supra.
In other words, there must be an affiliation between the forum
and the underlying controversy. Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel,
313 Neb. 135, 983 N.W.2d 134 (2023). See Ford Motor Co. v.
Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, supra.
   [18-20] We have said that the benchmark for determining
if the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process
is whether the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum
state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there. Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel,
313 Neb. 135, 983 N.W.2d 134 (2023). For example, the forum
state can assert specific personal jurisdiction if a nonresident
                              - 908 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 892

corporation continuously and deliberately exploited the forum
state’s market and must reasonably anticipate the potentiality
of defending actions based on products causing injury there.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
supra. This analysis is not simply mechanical or quantitative,
but requires that we consider the quality and nature of the
defendant’s activities to ascertain whether the defendant has
the necessary minimum contacts with the forum to satisfy due
process. Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel, supra. For specific
personal jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection
between the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the
operative facts of the litigation. Id.
    [21,22] The requisite minimum contacts must exist either
at the time the cause of action arose, at the time the suit was
filed, or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior
to the filing of the lawsuit. Id. Contacts with the forum state
unrelated to the action have no bearing on a specific personal
jurisdiction analysis. See id. In this regard, we note that
the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected a strict causation-
only approach that had been employed by some jurisdictions
and reiterated that the relationship among the defendant, the
forum, and the litigation must be close enough to support spe-
cific personal jurisdiction such that the claims arise out of or
relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Ford Motor
Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, ___ U.S. ___, 141
S. Ct. 1017, 209 L. Ed. 2d 225 (2021).
    [23-25] It is essential to specific personal jurisdiction that
in each case there be some act by which the defendant pur-
posefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities
within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protec-
tions of its laws. Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel, supra. This
requirement ensures that a defendant will not be subject to
litigation in a jurisdiction solely due to random, fortuitous,
or attenuated contacts. Id. There must be fair warning that a
particular activity might subject the nonresident defendant to
the jurisdiction of the foreign sovereign, giving a degree of
                             - 909 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

predictability to the legal system by allowing potential defend­
ants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum
assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render
them liable to suit. Id. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985).
Unilateral activity of a plaintiff who claims some relation-
ship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the require-
ment of contact with the forum state. Wheelbarger v. Detroit
Diesel, supra.
   We have reviewed the record and determine that the
Griffiths are unable to identify contacts between LGCAI and
Nebraska that are sufficiently related to the operative facts of
the complaint. The 18650 batteries were shipped directly from
South Korea, and LGCAI did not have physical possession of
and did not participate in the distribution of the 18650 batter-
ies in Nebraska. Although LGCAI participated in sales of pet-
rochemicals, it does not generate other revenue in Nebraska.
LGCAI has not contracted for business with Shoemaker’s or
E-Titan and has not initiated the sale of the 18650 batter-
ies for electronic cigarettes or vaping devices. In our view,
LGCAI’s acts do not satisfy the “relatedness” requirement of
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, supra.
In contrast, because, inter alia, LG Chem and LGCAI shipped
its 18650 batteries to customers located in Texas, the Texas
Supreme Court found that a consumer’s claims were suffi-
ciently related to LGCAI’s contacts with Texas to satisfy due
process for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. LG Chem
America, Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. 2023).
   The Griffiths emphasize that LGCAI rents warehouse space
in Nebraska as part of its sales of petrochemical materials
and products, such as rubber. No LGCAI employees work at
the warehouse, and a third-party distributor delivers products
from the warehouse to the customer when such petrochemical
sales occur. The record suggests that at least two customers
in Nebraska bought rubber products from LGCAI. However,
LGCAI’s petrochemical sales and activities associated with
                            - 910 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                 GRIFFITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 892

distribution of other products were not related to LG Chem’s
sale of the 18650 batteries involved in this suit and are
not enough to create a substantial connection of LGCAI to
Nebraska for purposes of satisfying due process.
   In this case, the Griffiths have not demonstrated specific
relatedness of LGCAI’s contacts with Nebraska and this law-
suit to satisfy due process to support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction. Accordingly, LGCAI was properly dismissed as
a party.
                        CONCLUSION
   For the reasons recited above, we determine that the
Griffiths’ negligence and loss of consortium claims against
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan are substantively based in
Pennsylvania and that its rules for limitation on actions are
applicable. Applying Pennsylvania’s 2-year limitation period
for actions for personal injury, the Griffiths’ claims against
Shoemaker’s and E-Titan are untimely. Summary judgment
was properly granted with respect to these claims. We further
determine that the district court did not err when it concluded
that it lacked personal jurisdiction over LGCAI. Accordingly,
we affirm the rulings of the district court.
                                                    Affirmed.