Elkman

I concur. In view of the current state of the law, represented by Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 [ 90 L.Ed. 95 , 66 S.Ct. 154 ] (Internat. Shoe) and its progeny, California lacks sufficient minimum contacts with defendant for the exercise of either general or specific jurisdiction.

However, I write separately to reiterate the view expressed by Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 299 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490 , 100 S.Ct. 559 ], that the standards enunciated in Internat. Shoe and its progeny “may already be obsolete as constitutional boundaries.”

Justice Brennan observed “Though its flexible approach represented a major advance, the structure of our society has changed in many significant ways since International Shoe was decided in 1945. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ] (1957), recognized that ‘a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other nonresidents.’ He explained the trend as follows: PH] ‘In part this is…

*1309 Opinion

Plaintiff and appellant Esther Elkman (Elkman) appeals an order granting a motion to quash service of summons and complaint filed by defendant and respondent National States Insurance Company (National). 1

National, an out-of-state insurer which is not licensed or authorized to do business in California, receives insurance premiums from California and processes and pays claims submitted by its insureds who are domiciled in this state. The essential issue presented is whether such circumstances provide a basis to justify the imposition of either general or specific jurisdiction over National in California.

We conclude no basis is present here. National did not subject itself to either general or specific jurisdiction in California merely by accepting premium payments from California and by processing and paying claims submitted by its California insureds for services rendered in this state. Thus, the trial court properly found National lacks sufficient contacts with California for jurisdiction to attach. Therefore, the order granting the motion to quash is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Overview.

In 1998, National, a Missouri corporation, issued…

Plaintiff and appellant Esther Elkman (Elkman) appeals an order granting a motion to quash service of summons and complaint filed by defendant and respondent National States Insurance Company (National). [1]

National, an out-of-state insurer which is not licensed or authorized to do business in California, receives insurance premiums from California and processes and pays claims submitted by its insureds who are domiciled in this state. The essential issue presented is whether such circumstances provide a basis to justify the imposition of either general or specific jurisdiction over National in California.

We conclude no basis is present here. National did not subject itself to either general or specific jurisdiction in California merely by accepting premium payments from California and by processing and paying claims submitted by its California insureds for services rendered in this state. Thus, the trial court properly found National lacks sufficient contacts with California for jurisdiction to attach. Therefore, the order granting the motion to quash is affirmed.

In 1998, National, a Missouri corporation, issued a long-term care insurance policy to Elkman. The…