Court: Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Bridgeport
Plaintiff Jacob Russell Herman Sr. filed an action in the Superior Court of Connecticut as the surviving spouse and executor of the estate of the late Elaine Adelia Hickey Herman, following her death from mesothelioma. Plaintiff alleged the decedent’s mesothelioma was the result of take-home exposure between the late-1950s to the early-2000s from her father and husband’s auto mechanic work and her personal use of talc products beginning in the 1960s. Plaintiff also alleged every named defendant had been, or was currently engaged, directly or indirectly, in the manufacturing, producing, selling, merchandising, supplying, distributing, and/or otherwise placing asbestos-containing products in the Connecticut stream of commerce.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleged the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants because his claims arise from the defendants’ conduct in: transacting business in this state, including the sale, supply, purchase, and/or use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products; (b) contracting to supply services or things in the state; (c) commission of a tortious act in whole or in part in this state; (d) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this state; (e) entering into a contract to be performed in whole or in part by either party in this state; and/or (f) exposing the decedent to asbestos dust, fibers and/or particles generated from the ordinary and foreseeable use of the asbestos-containing products it sold, supplied, distributed, incorporated, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce in Connecticut. — See Herman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2025 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2049, at *3 [Super Ct July 3, 2025, No. CV23-6123687].
One defendant, ACL, a Canadian corporation, moved to dismiss all pending claims against it on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-292. ACL supported its motion with a memorandum of law and corresponding exhibits. Plaintiff objected to the motion, eventually leading to defendant’s reply and eventual oral argument.
To support its motion, ACL submitted a signed affidavit from its counsel containing more than a dozen facts disputing personal jurisdiction. Said facts included that ACL had always been a corporation under the laws of Canada; its principal office was in Quebec; it was solely a mining corporation that had never manufactured, distributed, or sold asbestos-containing materials; the company had never been incorporated under the laws of Connecticut; it never paid taxes or had bank accounts in Connecticut; it neither possessed real property nor maintained an office in Connecticut; and it never had any employees or an authorized agent to accept service in Connecticut.
“Ordinarily, the defendant has the burden to disprove personal jurisdiction.” See Samelko v. Kingston Ins. Co., 329 Conn. 249, 256 (2018). Generally, the court rules on the facts of the complaint alone, including facts necessarily implied from the complaint’s allegations. However, this burden shifts to the plaintiff if the defendant challenging the court’s personal jurisdiction is a foreign corporation. In these situations, the plaintiff must produce evidence that adequately establishes jurisdiction. This permits the nonmoving party the ability to supplement its original complaint with any undisputed fact established in the moving party’s motion. In other words, the nonmoving party/plaintiff can use the defendant’s own affidavits submitted in support of the motion to dismiss against the defendant.
However, if the defendant’s affidavits and/or other evidence submitted in support of its motion to dismiss conclusively establish that jurisdiction is lacking, plaintiff must then undermine such conclusion with counter-affidavits. Should the plaintiff fail to do so, the trial court may dismiss the action without further proceedings.
Here, plaintiff failed to offer any counter-affidavit or other evidence to oppose ACL’s motion, or the facts alleged in ACL’s affidavit. Without any evidence, the court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over ACL because plaintiff could not meet his burden.
Read the full decision here
