September 5, 2025

LOUISVILLE, KY – QPWB has secured a complete defense victory in a complex, multi-party wrongful death case. The court granted the defense team’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on behalf of a Japanese manufacturing company and its U.S. distributor, based in Illinois. The court's ruling dismissed all claims against our clients.

Overview of the Case

This legal action stemmed from a tragic incident at a power station in Kentucky where two individuals, while on the job, were overcome by hydrogen sulfide gas during a pump inspection. The decedents' estates brought lawsuits asserting multiple theories of liability against several national and international entities, including our clients. Our defense strategy from the onset of the litigation was to prove that the Kentucky court had no personal jurisdiction over our clients, as they were not domiciled in or conducting business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Key Difference-Makers

• Brandon C. R. Sword – Managing Partner, Louisville Hub
• Alexandria Dobrowolski – Associate, Louisville Hub

Administrative Support

• Jolene Upton - Paralegal
• Candace Sewell - Paralegal
• Melissa Works - Paralegal

Claims Made Against Our Client

Claims of strict liability, negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium were asserted against our clients. The plaintiffs alleged that our clients manufactured pumps which were meant to remove water and coal ash byproduct from the bottom of a vault. It was claimed that the pumps malfunctioned, allowing water to collect at the bottom of the vault. Plaintiffs further alleged that a gas-powered pump provided by another defendant was insufficient to remove the water, ultimately contributing to the deaths of the decedents.

Defense Strategy

Our defense focused on proving the subject court lacked personal jurisdiction over our clients. The pump in question was manufactured in Japan and shipped to Chicago, Illinois, with no connection to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The defense argued that our clients had no business activities in the state that would subject them to Kentucky’s long-arm statute. We filed and renewed motions to dismiss, arguing that the court could not maintain either general or specific jurisdiction over our non-resident clients without offending their Federal Due Process Rights.

Specifically, the subject court lacked specific jurisdiction because the cause of action against our clients did not arise from any of their contacts in Kentucky. Our defense team methodically refuted the plaintiff’s attempts to establish jurisdiction under the following provisions of Kentucky's long-arm statute: Transacting Business (KRS 454.210(2)(a)(l)), where the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any "direct, affirmative actions" by our clients to solicit or result in a business transaction in Kentucky; Contracting to Supply Goods in Kentucky (KRS 454.210(2)(a)(2)), as the claims did not arise out of any such contracts; and Causing Tortious Injury (KRS 454.210(2)(a)(4)), which requires a defendant to have conducted continuous business and obtained profits from activities in the Commonwealth, which was not the case here.

Impact on Final Outcome

Despite the plaintiffs' attempts to establish sufficient contact to justify jurisdiction, they ultimately failed to meet their burden of proof. We litigated the case for approximately one year and a half in a limited capacity until we successfully convinced the court that it lacked jurisdiction over our clients. Plaintiffs’ claims against our clients were dismissed pursuant to CR 12.02(b) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted our motion to dismiss and all claims were dismissed.

Unique Aspects of the Case

This case required the defense team to navigate a unique procedural challenge. The defense team litigated in a limited capacity and complied with court-ordered jurisdictional discovery, all while firmly pushing the court for a ruling on the motions to avoid putting our clients' jurisdictional challenge in jeopardy. We balanced abiding by the court's orders with pushing the court to make a timely ruling on our motions.

Predicting the Future

This win provides a crucial precedent for future clients and the firm. It serves as a strong reminder that companies, especially international ones, cannot be improperly sued in jurisdictions where they have no contact. By staying true to our position from the onset of the case and thoroughly briefing the court with all applicable evidence, we established that dismissal was the only outcome. The victory demonstrates the firm's ability to protect the due process rights of its clients, ensuring they are not forced to litigate in a foreign forum.

Key Actions in This Case

• Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: Achieved a complete dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
• Evidence-Driven Defense: Proved a lack of sufficient contacts with the state through detailed shipping and business records
• Protected Due Process Rights: Ensured our clients were not improperly subjected to the jurisdiction of a court

About QPWB

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. is one of the fastest growing law firms in the United States providing a different focus on what it means to provide responsive service to clients and team members. With a national presence of 54 offices and a comprehensive scope of over 130 practice areas, QPWB delivers legal representation in litigation, regulatory, and corporate matters to a diverse range of industries. This scope and rapid expansion has attracted unique legal talent from all different backgrounds and experiences which has made them the largest minority-owned law firm in the country.