Businesses Risk Out-Of-State Lawsuits, Regulation From Registering In Consent To Jurisdiction States and Contractual Consents To Jurisdiction


Out-of-state employers, insurers, employee benefit plan vendors, and other businesses registered to do business in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, or another state that requires that out-of-state businesses consent to jurisdiction as a condition of their registration to do business in the state face a heightened risk of getting hauled into court in the consent to jurisdiction state following last month’s Supreme Court decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 600 U. S. ____ (2023) even if none of the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place in that state.

The Mallory ruling arose from a state lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court seeking damages by Robert Mallory (“Mallory”) to recover damages for cancer the argued was caused by the negligence of his former employer, Norfolk Southern Railroad (“Norfolk”) pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act workers’ compensation scheme that permits railroad employees to sue for injuries caused by employer negligence. Mallory filed the suit in Pennsylvania, a jurisdiction with no real connection to the claims but noted for its favorability to plaintiffs even though he never worked for Norfolk in Pennsylvania.  Mallory only worked for Norfolk in Ohio and Virginia, was a Virginia resident at the time of the suit, and only briefly lived in Pennsylvania after leaving Norfolk’s employment before returning to live in Virginia. Given the lack of connection of Pennsylvania to the parties and events giving rise to the claim, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern moved for the dismissal of the Pennsylvania lawsuit for lack of the requisite “substantial minimum contacts” generally required to support personal jurisdiction.

While courts generally recognize and enforce contractual agreements by a party to consent to jurisdiction, mere registration of an out-of-state business to do business in a state historically has not been recognized as creating the necessary “substantial minimum contacts” that the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution generally requires exist to provide the general personal jurisdiction that must exist for a state court to possess jurisdiction to decide a lawsuit over the out-of-state business under the Supreme Court precedent first articulated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945)

Because Pennsylvania is one of five states that currently requires all out-of-state businesses registering to do business in the State to consent to be sued in the state as a condition of registration, however, Mallory argued and the Supreme Court agreed in Mallory that Norfolk waived its ability to object to personal jurisdiction when it registered to do business in the Commonwealth. 

In Mallory, the Supreme Court Majority ruled that any corporation registered to do business in a state which requires out-of-state businesses to consent to general personal jurisdiction waives its right to assert a Due Process challenge to jurisdiction in that state. Accordingly, businesses registering to do business in a consent-to-jurisdiction registration state should anticipate that their mere registration with the state likely subjects the business to the jurisdiction of courts in that state even if the business has not entered into a contractual agreement to submit to that state’s jurisdiction or otherwise engage in other actions establishing the required substantial minimum contacts to satisfy the International Shoe Due Process standards even if none of the events underlying the lawsuit took place in that state.

Given the Supreme Court’s Mallory decision, businesses should take into account the potential risks of being subjected to out-of-state litigation and regulation anytime the business expands operations into, registers to do business as an out-of-state business or signs an agreement consenting to jurisdiction into a state other than their primary place of business. As evidenced by Mallory, businesses generally should consider and take steps to manage the risks of allowing the creation of jurisdiction against their business in states other than the primary location in which the business operates. Businesses subject to jurisdiction in a state generally become subject to laws, regulations, and lawsuits in that state. Aside from added obligations and costs associated with being subject to the laws of another state and conducting litigation in an unfamiliar state, businesses subject to the jurisdiction of laws in courts in multiple states open the door for opposing parties to strengthen their position by foreign shopping. Like Mallory, disgruntled current or former employees, plan members, or other opposing parties in disputes may choose to file their lawsuit in the state with the laws, rules, or precedent most favorable to their position even where the dispute does not arise out of events occurring in the chosen state.  Along with assessing when their organization may be subject to liability in other states, businesses should review their insurance coverage and applications to ensure that their insurance and other risk management arrangements take into account the added risks and liabilities that could arise from the additional state law jurisdiction. Consequently, businesses choosing to operate, to register to do business in a consent-to-jurisdiction state, or contractually to agree to submit to jurisdiction in any states should be prepared for the possibility that their organization could subject themselves to regulations, lawsuits, investigations and enforcement actions in that state.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.  

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.  

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government, and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability, and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about the preparation of workforce, health care, and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day-to-day operations, through times of crisis or change, and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.

Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress, and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community, and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension, and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration, and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. 

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training, and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls, and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as: 

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 17th, 2023 at 2:45 PM and is filed under Age Discrimination, Antitrust, board of directors, Brokers, child labor, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug Testing, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Termination, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family Leave, FLSA, FMLA, Fringe Benefits, health benefit, health insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Identity Theft, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, LBGT, Leave, Management, noncompete, occupational safety, OSHA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.