Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd.

Although I concur in the result reached by the main opinion as to the issue of general jurisdiction, I dissent because I disagree with the main opinion’s conclusion that the trial court lacked specific jurisdiction in this case.

A. General Jurisdiction

I agree with the main opinion’s conclusion that “the trial court correctly concluded that it did not have general jurisdiction *1147over [General Motors of Canada, Ltd. (‘GM Canada’),]” because “[t]here is simply no evidence in this case indicating that GM Canada had contacts with Alabama that could be considered so continuous and systematic that…