Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court

Ford's extensive marketing, sale, and service of vehicle models in Montana and Minnesota demonstrated purposeful availment of those forums, satisfying the first prong of the specific jurisdiction test. The Court applied the disjunctive 'arise out of or relate to' standard from Bristol-Myers Squibb, holding that plaintiffs' claims relating to injuries from Ford vehicles arose out of Ford's regular in-state automotive activities, even though these particular cars were not designed, manufactured, or sold in those states - thus rejecting Ford's argument that strict causal connection between the specific cars and its in-state conduct was required. Ford's deliberate market participation in the forum states, combined with the reasonable expectation that vehicles sold there would generate injury claims within those courts' jurisdictional reach, satisfied the reasonableness prong. Accordingly, Montana and Minnesota courts could exercise specific jurisdiction over the product liability suits.