No. 454 April Term 1979, No. 483 April Term 1979, Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Please of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No. GD 78 - 17597.
Dennis Watson, Pittsburgh, for appellants, (at No. 483) and appellees, (at No. 454).
Richard B. Tucker, III, Pittsburgh, for Goff, appellant, (at No. 545) and for appellee, (at No. 483).
Michael V. Gilberti, Pittsburgh, for Armbrecht, appellee.
Spaeth, Hoffman and Van der Voort, JJ. Hoffman, J., concurs in the result. Van der Voort, J., files a dissenting opinion.
[ 284 Pa. Super. Page 547]
This case is the third of three long-arm jurisdiction cases that we decide today.*fn1 It comprises two appeals*fn2 from an order sustaining preliminary objections raising a question of jurisdiction and dismissing the complaint.
Accepting as true, for the purposes of this inquiry, all well-pleaded facts, Frisch v. Alexson Equip. Corp., 423 Pa. 247,
[ 284 Pa. Super. Page 548224]
A.2d 183 (1966), the complaint*fn3 may be summarized as follows. Appellant is a resident of Mineral Springs, Ohio. Appellee is an Ohio corporation that sells automobiles from its principal place of business in Youngstown, Ohio. Appellant purchased a Jeep, manufactured by American Motors Corporation, from appellee. Appellant was a passenger in the Jeep when it went out of control and collided with a guardrail on Interstate Route 80 in Pennsylvania. Appellant sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of the accident.
Appellee's answers to appellant's interrogatories revealed that appellee had the following contacts in Pennsylvania. For 36 years appellee has been listed in the Driver's Directory of GMC Truck Dealers, which is distributed in this state; it advertises occasionally in one Youngstown newspaper, which may have Pennsylvania readers, and two Youngstown radio stations, which may have Pennsylvania listeners;*fn4 it has sold vehicles to Pennsylvania residents, although all sales were made in Ohio; it has sent parts and accessories to Pennsylvania residents; not more than ten times a year, it has sent officers into Pennsylvania to secure notary service for titles regarding sales of vehicles to Pennsylvania residents; some factory mailing lists, not sent at appellee's request, may have included Pennsylvania residents; it orders some of its vehicle products, parts and accessories from two supply centers in Pennsylvania, although the items ordered may not have come originally from Pennsylvania; on at least one occasion, it has delivered a car purchased in Ohio to a Pennsylvania resident.
[ 284 Pa. Super. Page 549]
Our approach to the long-arm jurisdiction case may be seen from our other decisions today. Kingsley and Keith (Canada) Limited, et al., v. Mercer International Corp., et al., 284 Pa. Super. 524, 426 A.2d 618 (1980); Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Exec'r. v. L. D. Pankey Institute et al., 284 Pa. Super. 537, 426 A.2d 624 (1980). First, we apply the three-part test formulated in Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co., 228 Pa. Super. 12, 19, 323 A.2d 11, 15 (1974), where we stated:
First, the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within the forum state thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Hanson v. Denckla, supra, [357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)]. Secondly, the cause of action must arise from defendant's activities within the forum state. See Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968); Electric Regulator Corp. v. Sterling Extruder Corp., 280 F.Supp. 550 (D.Conn.1968). Lastly, the acts of the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over it reasonable. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, [326 U.S. 310 [66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95] (1945)]; see Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., supra, [401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968)]; see also In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc., 466 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1972); Kourkene v. American BBR, Inc., 313 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1963).
Second, if this test is not satisfied, we determine whether the non-resident defendant's activities in Pennsylvania were "continuous and substantial." Bork v. Mills, 458 Pa. 228, 329 A.2d 247 (1974).
As just noted, the first part of the Proctor test is that it must appear that the defendant has "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within [Pennsylvania]." In ...