August v. HBA Life Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1DissentK.K. Hall, Circuit Judge
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the requisite due-process requirements have been met to subject HBA to in personam jurisdiction. As the majority recognizes, the only possible contact between HBA and Virginia is the “elimination rider” which was mailed by the insurance company to the Augusts’ Virginia res*174idence and to which the Augusts never responded. I agree with the bankruptcy judge that this contact was insufficient to trigger Virginia’s Long-Arm statute and I, therefore, dissent.
Although Sharon August filed her claim for medical expenses after the Augusts had…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.