Facts

In 2007, King Tuna Inc. filed a lawsuit against Anova Food Inc. in the district court of Oregon. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Anova's insurer, rejected the tender of the suit. After King Tuna refiled its case in the Central District of California, Anova was eventually awarded $3.3 million against King Tuna on counterclaims. Scott, Blane, and Darren Recovery LLC, or SBD, as Anova's successor in interest, filed an action against Auto-Owners Insurance Co. for bad faith refusal to defend Anova against King Tuna's suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
SBD argued that Auto-Owners policies covered the claims in the action filed by King Tuna and that Auto-Owners acted in bad faith by failing to defend Anova in that action. SBD argued that Auto-Owners were subject to personal jurisdiction.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Auto-Owners argued that suit should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Auto-Owners argued that it had "no direct connection with California."

Result

The court granted Auto-Owners's motion to dismiss, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held Auto-Owners had "not purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of California."

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 13, 2014.