PER CURIAM.

Florian Hinrichs, the plaintiff in this case, appeals from a judgment dismissing the case as to defendant General Motors of Canada, Ltd. ("GM Canada"). The trial court made the judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. We affirm.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

On June 24, 2007, Hinrichs was riding in the front passenger seat of a 2004 GMC Sierra 1500 pickup truck ("the Sierra") that was owned and operated by his friend Daniel Vinson when they were involved in a motor-vehicle accident. It is undisputed that Hinrichs was wearing his seat belt. A vehicle operated by Kenneth Earl Smith, who was driving under the influence of alcohol, ran a stop sign and collided with the passenger-side door of the Sierra. The Sierra rolled over twice, but landed on its wheels. Hinrichs suffered a spinal-cord injury in the accident that left him a quadriplegic. The accident occurred in Geneva County. Hinrichs alleges that his injuries were caused by the defective design of the roof of the Sierra that allowed the roof over the passenger compartment to collapse during the rollover and by the defective design of the seat belt in the Sierra, which failed to restrain him.

At the time of the accident, Hinrichs, a German citizen, was a member of the German military; he had been assigned to Fort Rucker for flight training. He and Vinson were in the same training program. Vinson had purchased the Sierra at Hill Buick, Inc., d/b/a O'Reilly Pontiac-Buick-GMC and/or Hill Pontiac-Buick-GMC ("the O'Reilly dealership"), in Pennsylvania in 2003. He drove it to Alabama in 2006 when he was assigned to Fort Rucker. General Motors Corporation, known as Motors Liquidation Company after July 9, 2009 ("GM"), designed the Sierra. GM Canada, whose principal place of business is in Ontario, Canada, manufactured certain parts of the Sierra, assembled the vehicle, and sold it to GM in Canada, where title transferred. GM then distributed the Sierra for sale in the United States through a GM dealer. The Sierra ultimately was delivered to the O'Reilly dealership for sale.

Hinrichs sued GM and Smith in February 2008, alleging a claim against GM under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") and claims against GM and Smith of negligence and wantonness. Pursuant to Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P., Hinrichs also alleged claims against several fictitiously named defendants. Hinrichs alleged that design defects in the Sierra were responsible for the accident and his permanent paralysis. Specifically, he alleged that the roof of the Sierra collapsed during the rollover and that the seat belt did not properly restrain him. In 2009, GM filed a petition for bankruptcy, which resulted in the trial court's staying the case as to GM pursuant to the automatic-stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362. Hinrichs thereafter filed a claim in the bankruptcy case and settled with GM.

Hinrichs then filed an amendment to his complaint to substitute GM Canada, the O'Reilly dealership, and Hill Cadillac, Inc., d/b/a Hill Cadillac-Oldsmobile ("the Hill dealership"),1 for three of the fictitiously named defendants. The O'Reilly dealership and the Hill dealership moved to dismiss the action as to them, alleging that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. GM Canada answered the complaint, alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction. GM Canada then filed a motion for a hearing on its jurisdictional defense. In the motion, GM Canada alleged:

In support of its motion, GM Canada filed the affidavit of Geoffrey Bailey, the manager of vehicle-product programs and regulations for GM Canada. Bailey testified, in pertinent part:

Hinrichs then filed a second amendment to his complaint in which he added the following jurisdictional allegations:

GM Canada then supplemented its motion for a hearing on its jurisdictional defense, alleging that Hinrichs's jurisdictional allegations were conclusory and unsupported.

Hinrichs amended his complaint a third time, adding the emphasized language to paragraph 4a:

Hinrichs also filed a response to GM Canada's motion for a hearing on its jurisdictional defense.

After the trial court considered the parties' written submissions and held a hearing at which it heard argument from counsel for both parties, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing GM Canada from the action with prejudice. Hinrichs filed a postjudgment motion, which the trial court denied. Hinrichs then voluntarily dismissed his claims against the O'Reilly dealership and the Hill dealership. Because Smith remains as a defendant in the case, the parties requested that the trial court certify the judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). After the trial court entered its Rule 54(b) order, Hinrichs appealed the judgment dismissing GM Canada.

II. Standard of Review

In Corporate Waste Alternatives, Inc. v. McLane Cumberland, Inc., 896 So.2d 410, 413 (Ala.2004), this Court repeated the standard of review applicable in a case such as this:

III. Analysis

Hinrichs argues that the trial court had specific jurisdiction over GM Canada, that the trial court erred when it failed to consider the fair-play and substantial-justice factors under the due-process analysis, that the trial court had general jurisdiction over GM Canada, and that GM Canada waived its right to assert the defense of lack of jurisdiction.

A. Waiver

We first address Hinrichs's argument that GM Canada waived its right to assert the lack of jurisdiction in this case because of what Hinrichs characterizes as its undue delay in seeking a ruling on the jurisdictional defense asserted in its answer. Hinrichs contends that because GM Canada substantially participated in this litigation for three years before it filed its motion seeking a hearing on its assertion of lack of personal jurisdiction and because it continued to participate in the litigation after it filed the motion, GM Canada failed to timely pursue its lack-of-jurisdiction defense. Therefore, he argues, the trial court erred in dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We see no merit in this argument for two reasons.

First, Hinrichs did not adequately raise this issue in the trial court to warrant his asserting the issue on appeal. See Porter v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 828 So.2d 907, 908 (Ala.2002) ("The appellate courts will not consider a challenge to an order or a judgment of a trial court asserted for the first time on appeal."). The portion of the record referred to by Hinrichs in that portion of his appellate brief where he asserts waiver did not reflect an argument that GM Canada had waived its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; it merely called to the trial court's attention the consequences of an adverse ruling. Specifically, in his postjudgment motion, Hinrichs argued:

Second, even if we assume that Hinrichs sufficiently raised the waiver issue before the trial court, Hinrichs repeatedly sought extensions of the trial court's scheduling order and took no action to pursue his claims against GM Canada during this period. When it appeared that the trial court would not further amend its scheduling order, GM Canada filed its motion reasserting its defense to personal jurisdiction and, thereafter, under pressure of the definitive scheduling order, sought discovery during the pendency of the motion. Hinrichs cannot point to GM Canada's having at any time caused the trial court to address a potentially dispositive issue that would have been moot had its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction been later sustained. See Ex parte Alaska Bush Adventures, LLC, 168 So.3d 1195, 1203 (2014) (Lyons, Special Justice, concurring specially and condemning efforts to "have it both ways"). GM Canada did not waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

B. Jurisdiction

We next address Hinrichs's jurisdictional arguments. In Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 354 Or. 572, 316 P.3d 287 (2013), the Supreme Court of Oregon, addressing the issue whether asserting jurisdiction over a foreign corporation comports with due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, aptly summarized the current status of the United States Supreme Court's holdings, including Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). The Robinson court stated:

354 Or. at 577-80, 316 P.3d at 291-92 (third emphasis original; other emphases added; footnote omitted).

1. General Jurisdiction

As the discussion of Goodyear in Robinson makes evident, the United States Supreme Court in Goodyear recently restricted the scope of general jurisdiction by requiring that the foreign corporation have such contacts with the forum state as to be "at home" there, such as being incorporated there, having its principal place of business there, or having some other comparable level of intensity of contact. The Court stated in Goodyear:

564 U.S. at 924-25, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (emphasis added).

The United States Supreme Court subsequently amplified its restriction of the scope of general jurisdiction in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014):

571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 760-62 (first emphasis added; footnotes omitted).

As Daimler makes clear, the inquiry as to general jurisdiction under Goodyear is not whether GM Canada's contacts with Alabama are in some way "continuous and systematic," but whether its contacts with Alabama are so "continuous and systematic" that it is essentially "at home" here. 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846. GM Canada is not incorporated here; its principal place of business is in Canada. It manufactures, assembles, and sells its product in Canada. There is simply no evidence in this case indicating that GM Canada had contacts with Alabama that could be considered so continuous and systematic that would render it "at home" in Alabama. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that it did not have general jurisdiction over GM Canada.

2. Specific Jurisdiction

Hinrichs argues that the trial court erred in holding that his claims did not arise out of or relate to GM Canada's contacts in Alabama because, he argues, GM Canada manufactured the vehicle in which Hinrichs was injured with the intention and expectation that after it was manufactured in Canada it would be distributed, sold, and used throughout the United States, including Alabama. Hinrichs maintains that a holding that GM Canada is not subject to specific jurisdiction in Alabama would effectively grant "absolute immunity" to a foreign manufacturer any time its product crosses a state line from the state in which it was initially sold. The location of the sale, he says, is not the factor that subjects a manufacturer to litigation in a particular forum. Instead, Hinrichs contends, "courts focus on whether the manufacturer intended and expected for the product to be distributed, sold, and used in the forum where the injury occurs." Hinrichs's brief, at 17.

The trial court held that GM Canada's contacts with Alabama did not arise out of or relate to Hinrichs's cause of action. Hinrichs argues that the trial court placed an unreasonably restrictive interpretation on the phrase "arise out of or relate to." The majority of the federal circuit courts of appeals that have interpreted the phrase, Hinrichs says, agree that a "more flexible standard must be applied to satisfy the requirements of due process, i.e., fairness." Hinrichs's brief, at 19.2 He then argues that, if a claim that arises in a forum is a foreseeable consequence of a defendant's activities within that forum, then there is a sufficient nexus between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation to give rise to specific jurisdiction.

Hinrichs maintains that GM Canada's contacts with Alabama are continuous, substantial, and systematic. He states that GM Canada derives 80-90 percent of its profit from the United States market, a profit he says is due in part to the substantial amount of business done in Alabama through 120 GM dealerships. According to Hinrichs, GM Canada knows the vehicles it manufacturers will be distributed, sold, and used in Alabama.

Hinrichs next argues that the location of the sale of the Sierra is not conclusive in deciding whether a claim arises out of or relates to GM Canada's contacts with Alabama. Because GM Canada purposefully sought to serve the United States market, including Alabama, Hinrichs says, nothing restricted the distribution, sale, or use of the Sierra in Alabama; therefore, Hinrichs concludes, GM Canada's contacts with Alabama, albeit unrelated to Hinrichs's claims, are not fortuitous. Hinrichs relies on Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635 (Ala.2009), and two unpublished federal district court cases, Rowland v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., No. 1:11CV183-SA-SAA, 2013 WL 3381512 (N.D.Miss. July 8, 2013), and Ray v. Ford Motor Co., No. Civ. A.307-CV-175-WH, 2008 WL 2756655 (M.D.Ala. July 11, 2008), to support his contention that a foreign manufacturer is subject to specific jurisdiction in Alabama even if a product that causes injury in Alabama was sold elsewhere, and he argues that GM Canada's contacts with Alabama are similar to those addressed in DBI, Rowland, and Ray in that GM Canada manufactures and sells vehicles for distribution, sale, and use in any state in the United States. Hinrichs also argues that courts do not disregard the significance of where an injury occurs when the injury takes place outside the forum. Citing Goodyear, he says that the United States Supreme Court "stated that specific jurisdiction was appropriate where there is `an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy,' principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation." Hinrichs's brief, at 31 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846). Hinrichs alleges that the Goodyear Court found that specific jurisdiction was lacking, in part, because the "episode-in-suit, the bus accident, occurred in France" and not the forum state. The episode-in-suit in this case, the automobile accident, he says, occurred in Alabama, the forum state, and that occurrence, he argues, is subject to Alabama's regulation.

Finally, Hinrichs argues, the location of a seller of a defendant's product, who is not a party to the action, is irrelevant to determining whether a defendant's contacts with a state relate to a plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, he argues, a plaintiff's residency is also irrelevant in determining whether a defendant's contacts with a state arise out of or relate to a plaintiff's claim. Therefore, Hinrichs concludes, the fact that the Sierra was sold in Pennsylvania and was not sold to an Alabama resident is not conclusive in determining whether his claim arose out of or related to GM Canada's contacts with Alabama.

In response, GM Canada argues that the trial court properly held that it could not exercise specific jurisdiction over GM Canada because, it says, Hinrichs's claims do not arise out of and are not related to any contacts GM Canada had with the State of Alabama. GM Canada argues:

GM Canada's brief, at 42. GM Canada contends that two key undisputed facts preclude the exercise of specific jurisdiction in this case: (1) the Sierra was sold in Pennsylvania, not in Alabama, and (2) the Sierra did not enter Alabama by any distribution channel used by GM or GM Canada, but entered through the unilateral, fortuitous actions of Vinson. Moreover, GM Canada says, it assembled the Sierra and sold it to GM in Canada, and GM distributed and sold the Sierra to the O'Reilly dealership, which in turn sold the Sierra to Vinson, a Pennsylvania resident at the time of the sale. GM Canada argues that courts have repeatedly rejected Hinrichs's argument that specific jurisdiction over GM Canada is proper because it was foreseeable that the Sierra might be involved in an accident in Alabama, citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) ("`[F]oreseeability' alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause."); and J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 891, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011) (Breyer, J., concurring) (rejecting theory that would "rest jurisdiction instead upon no more than the occurrence of a product-based accident in the forum State" and writing that "this Court has rejected the notion that a defendant's amenability to suit `travel[s] with the chattel'").3

GM Canada also argues that the exercise of specific jurisdiction cannot be based on the location of the underlying accident or on GM's distribution of other vehicles in Alabama that were manufactured by GM Canada. GM Canada relies on Ex parte Phil Owens Used Cars, Inc., 4 So.3d 418 (Ala.2008), a product-liability action that arose out of a motor-vehicle accident in Alabama in which the plaintiffs alleged that roof and seat-belt defects in a 1985 Chevrolet conversion van caused their injuries. Phil Owens Used Cars, a Georgia dealership that sold and performed conversion work on the van, moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Alabama trial court did not have jurisdiction over it. In opposing Phil Owens Used Cars' motion, the plaintiffs presented evidence indicating that Phil Owens Used Cars had delivered at least 30 other vans to dealerships in Alabama. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Phil Owens Used Cars filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court. In granting that petition, this Court held that the plaintiffs' cause of action did not arise out of or relate to Phil Owens Used Cars' contacts with Alabama so as to confer specific jurisdiction.

4 So.3d at 427 (footnote omitted). GM Canada maintains that the jurisdictional principles discussed in Phil Owens Used Cars are well settled and have been recognized at least since World-Wide Volks-wagen was decided, concluding that a stream-of-commerce theory cannot form the basis for the exercise of specific jurisdiction when the product does not arrive in the forum state by any distribution channel used by the defendant but arrives in the forum state through the fortuitous acts of a third party.

GM Canada next argues that Hinrichs's reliance on DBI is misplaced. GM Canada says Hinrichs cites DBI for the proposition that specific jurisdiction is appropriate even if the sale of the product takes place in another state, but, GM Canada states, the holding in DBI is actually the opposite.

23 So.3d at 655. Likewise, GM Canada says, in Ray, the defendant, Ford Motor Company, manufactured a solenoid assembly in the vehicle that was sold in Alabama pursuant to Ford's distribution scheme, thus making its way into Alabama via the stream of commerce as a result of that distribution process, not through the fortuitous act of a consumer. GM Canada maintains that GM Canada has no contacts with Alabama that can support the exercise of specific jurisdiction over it in this case.

As this Court noted in DBI, decided in 2009, the United States Supreme Court had not provided definitive guidance in the area of personal jurisdiction for some time. We noted that "in the murky aftermath of the plurality opinions in Asahi [Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)], the task [of defining the term `due process'] has not been made any easier." 23 So.3d at 649. In Asahi, Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part I; the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A and III, which only Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Powell and Scalia joined. Justice Brennan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which Justices White, Marshall, and Blackmun joined. Justice Stevens also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which Justices White and Blackmun joined.

In Johnson v. Chrysler Canada Inc., 24 F.Supp.3d 1118 (N.D.Ala.2014), the United States District Court provided a helpful analysis of the various Asahi opinions:

24 F.Supp.3d at 1127-29.

In DBI, we applied World-Wide Volkswagen and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), the last discussions by the United States Supreme Court that were not hampered by the lack of a majority. In 2011, however, the Court decided Goodyear, a unanimous opinion. Although Goodyear was decided on the basis of a lack of general jurisdiction, the opinion discussed the principles of specific jurisdiction.

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court delivered another plurality opinion, McIntyre Machinery, which Justice Kennedy authored and which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. The federal district court in Johnson also provided a helpful analysis of the various McIntyre Machinery opinions:

24 F.Supp.3d at 1129-33.

Then, in 2014, the Supreme Court decided Daimler, in which eight Justices concurred and Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment. Like Goodyear, Daimler was decided on the basis of a lack of general jurisdiction, but discussed the principles of specific jurisdiction. Also in 2014, the Supreme Court decided Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014), a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Thomas, on the principles of specific jurisdiction. The Court in Walden stated:

571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121-23 (footnote omitted; first emphasis added).

Walden makes it clear that, absent general jurisdiction, the precedents of the United States Supreme Court require that, for specific jurisdiction to exist, GM Canada's in-state activity must "g[i]ve rise to the episode-in-suit," Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 923, 131 S.Ct. 2846, and involve "`adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction,'" 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846. Moreover, Walden clearly holds that whether a forum state can constitutionally assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant "`focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation."'" Walden, 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), quoting in turn Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)). Walden then clearly instructs that if a state is to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, "the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State." 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121 (emphasis added).

Here, there is no evidence of any suit-related contact between GM Canada and Alabama. Hinrichs argues that his claims are related to the activities of GM Canada because the vehicle in which he was injured was intentionally manufactured by GM Canada for distribution, sale, and use throughout the United States, including Alabama. We must, therefore, determine whether a stream-of-commerce analysis consistent with existing precedent can be applied to uphold specific jurisdiction over GM Canada under the facts of this case. The starting point of the stream of commerce in this case is GM Canada's anticipation of the presence of its vehicles in all 50 states, necessarily including Alabama. But it is undisputed that the stream of commerce for the Sierra ended at its sale in Pennsylvania, approximately 1,000 miles from Alabama.

In D'Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009), an aircraft manufactured in Switzerland by Pilatus crashed in Pennsylvania while attempting to land, killing all six persons aboard. The aircraft was making a scheduled stop in Pennsylvania while on a flight from Florida to Rhode Island. The majority of the aircraft manufactured by Pilatus are sold in the United States, but the aircraft involved in this crash was sold in France, not Pennsylvania, the forum state, and reached the United States through a series of resales in which Pilatus was not involved, none of which took place in Pennsylvania. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held:

566 F.3d at 104-06 (emphasis on the word "other" original; other emphasis added).

Although existing Supreme Court precedent on stream of commerce as a basis for specific jurisdiction is not a model of clarity, it is clear that a majority of the United States Supreme Court has yet to hold that foreseeability alone is sufficient to subject a nonresident defendant to specific jurisdiction in the forum state. This conclusion is consistent with a law-review article quoted with approval in Daimler describing International Shoe as clearly not saying that "dispute-blind" jurisdiction is appropriate in cases involving specific jurisdiction. 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 761.

In Walden, the United States Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on specific jurisdiction and the first case in many years to garner a unanimous Court on the subject, the Supreme Court emphatically underscored the requirement that the claim against the defendant have a suit-related nexus with the forum state before specific jurisdiction can attach. The Walden Court left no room for any exceptions. "For a State to exercise [specific] jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State." 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121 (emphasis added). Vinson, the owner of the vehicle in which Hinrichs was injured, brought the Sierra to Alabama. However, Vinson's "`unilateral activity of [bringing the Sierra to Alabama, in which GM Canada did not participate,] is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction.'" 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1122 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)).

Several federal district court cases are also instructive and consistent with Walden. In the following cases, the allegedly defective product was purchased in the forum state and the trial court found specific jurisdiction: Johnson v. Chrysler Canada Inc., supra (finding specific jurisdiction where motor-vehicle accident happened in Alabama involving vehicle manufactured in Canada and sold in Alabama to Alabama resident and manufacturer knew vehicle was bound for Alabama when it was sold); Rowland, supra (finding specific jurisdiction where motor-vehicle accident happened in Mississippi involving vehicle manufactured in Canada and sold in Mississippi to Mississippi resident); King v. General Motors Corp., No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 WL 1340066 (N.D.Ala. April 18, 2012) (unpublished decision) (finding specific jurisdiction where motor-vehicle accident happened in Alabama involving vehicle manufactured in Canada and sold in Alabama to Alabama resident); Graham v. Hamilton, Civil Action No. 3:11-609, 2012 WL 893748 (W.D.La. March 15, 2012) (unpublished decision) (exercising specific jurisdiction where motor-vehicle accident happened in Louisiana involving vehicle manufactured in Canada and sold in Louisiana to Louisiana resident); and Ray, supra (finding that solenoid manufacturer had purposefully directed contact toward Alabama and finding specific jurisdiction where motor-vehicle accident caused by defective solenoid in brakes happened in Alabama involving solenoid manufactured in Michigan specifically for Ford and installed by Ford and sold in Alabama to Alabama resident). See also Soria v. Chrysler Canada, Inc., 2011 IL App (2d) 101236, 958 N.E.2d 285, 354 Ill.Dec. 542 (2011) (finding specific jurisdiction where motor-vehicle accident happened in Illinois involving vehicle manufactured in Canada and sold in Illinois to Illinois resident and manufacturer knew vehicle was bound for Illinois when it was sold). But see Francis v. Bridgestone Corp., Civil No.2010/30 (D.V.I. July 6, 2011)(unpublished decision) (holding that exercise of specific jurisdiction was not warranted where motor-vehicle accident happened in Virgin Islands involving tire manufactured in Japan and tire was not sold in Virgin Islands but made its way there fortuitously).

In summary, this Court has not found any case in which a trial court has exercised specific jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer arising from its sale of an allegedly defective vehicle in a foreign jurisdiction to a separate entity in the foreign jurisdiction unless the vehicle was ultimately sold in the forum state. Put another way, we have found no caselaw that upholds specific jurisdiction where the stream of commerce for the product does not end in the forum state. Here, there simply is no "suit-related conduct" that creates a substantial connection between GM Canada and Alabama if the vehicle was not sold in Alabama, even though Hinrichs was injured in Alabama. Walden, 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121. We are reluctant to create, absent supporting precedent from the United States Supreme Court, dispute-blind specific jurisdiction. Therefore, we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that it did not have specific jurisdiction over GM Canada.4

3. Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Because we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that it had neither general nor specific jurisdiction over GM Canada, we pretermit Hinrichs's claim that the trial court failed to consider the fair-play and substantial-justice factors in its due-process analysis.

IV. Conclusion

We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed GM Canada from this case. We therefore affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

STUART, MAIN, and BRYAN, JJ., and LYONS, Special Justice,* concur.

BOLIN, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result.

PARKER, MURDOCK, and WISE, JJ., dissent.

SHAW, J., recuses himself.

BOLIN, Justice (concurring in part and concurring in the result).

I concur in that part of the main opinion that holds that the trial court correctly concluded that it lacked general jurisdiction over GM Canada because general jurisdiction is proper only when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are continuous and systematic and sufficient to render the defendant "at home" in the forum, and GM Canada's contacts with Alabama did not satisfy this standard. I concur only in the result reached by the main opinion in holding that the trial court correctly concluded that it lacked specific jurisdiction over GM Canada. I write specially to note that recent United States Supreme Court opinions regarding personal jurisdiction have resulted in uncertainty in the area of specific jurisdiction.

The United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the power of a state court to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants begins with Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 5 Otto 714, 24 S.Ct. 565 (1878), in which the Supreme Court held that a judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction over the defendant violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 S.Ct. 95 (1945), the Supreme Court recognized that a court could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the defendant had sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state so that subjecting the defendant to jurisdiction in the forum state did not "offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." From the 1940s to 1990, the Supreme Court continued to construct a framework for determining the power of a state to compel a nonresident defendant to defend suits brought against the nonresident defendant in the state's courts.5

The Supreme Court did not address personal jurisdiction for 21 years until 2011, and then again in 2014, during which time the Supreme Court granted certiorari review in 4 cases. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011); J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014); and Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014). Goodyear, a products-liability case, involved general jurisdiction. The plaintiffs, whose sons were killed in a bus accident in France allegedly caused by a defective tire manufactured by three foreign subsidiaries of Goodyear, brought an action against the subsidiaries in North Carolina where Goodyear USA had manufacturing facilities. The plaintiffs asserted that the foreign subsidiaries were subject to general jurisdiction in North Carolina because some percentage of their tires were distributed in North Carolina by virtue of the subsidiaries' placing their products in the stream of commerce. A unanimous Court held that the subsidiaries did not have the systematic and continuous contacts with the forum and therefore were not "fairly regarded at home" in North Carolina so as to be subject to general jurisdiction there. The Supreme Court held that the stream-of-commerce analysis that may serve to bolster the exercise of specific jurisdiction "did not warrant a determination that, based on those ties, the forum has general jurisdiction over a defendant." Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 927, 131 S.Ct. 2846.

The same day the Supreme Court released Goodyear, it released McIntyre Machinery. McIntyre Machinery was also a products-liability case, but it involved specific jurisdiction. The plaintiff injured his hand while using a machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery in England, where the company is incorporated and operates. Nicastro sued J. McIntyre in New Jersey where the accident occurred, arguing that New Jersey had personal jurisdiction over J. McIntyre because a United States distributor had agreed to sell J. McIntyre's machines in the United States, J. McIntyre attended trade shows in the United States, though not in New Jersey, and a few J. McIntyre machines ended up in New Jersey. The plurality opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas. Applying a traditional due-process analysis, Justice Kennedy wrote that the exercise of jurisdiction in that case would violate due process when J. McIntyre had never engaged in any activities in New Jersey that revealed an intent to invoke, or to benefit from the protection of, the state's laws. Justice Kennedy then went on to address the stream-of-commerce doctrine, writing that the stream-of-commerce doctrine cannot displace the general rule that it is the defendant's purposeful availment that makes the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant consistent with fair play and substantial justice. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the confusion created by the plurality opinion in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987), over the stream-of-commerce analysis, given the analysis applied by Justice Brennan in that case and Justice O'Connor's writing stating that the placement of a product in the stream of commerce, without more, is inconsistent with due process.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the judgment in McIntyre Machinery, concluding that because the case did not present the new and special issues arising from recent changes in commerce and communication, it was unnecessary to go into a full analysis of the stream-of-commerce issue as it might be applied to modern marketing. Instead, he wrote that the outcome of the case could be determined by the Supreme Court's existing precedents, which have held that a single isolated sale, even if accompanied by the kind of sales effort indicated in the record in that case, is not sufficient because there was no "regular flow" or "regular course" of sales in New Jersey, nor was there any special state-related design, advertising, advice, or marketing directed toward New Jersey. Justice Ginsburg dissented, and Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined her dissent.

In 2014, the Supreme Court issued Daimler AG, a case involving general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that due process prevented California from exercising personal jurisdiction over Daimler AG, a German corporation, for allegedly participating in war atrocities in Argentina that led to the deaths and injuries of residents of Argentina. The plaintiffs asserted that jurisdiction was predicated upon the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a subsidiary of Daimler AG, incorporated in Delaware, with is principal place of business in New Jersey. The Court held that a corporation that operates in many places cannot be deemed "at home" in all those places for purposes of general jurisdiction.

Also in 2014, the Supreme Court released Walden, a specific-jurisdiction case. In Walden, the plaintiffs were two professional gamblers from Nevada who were stopped and searched in the Atlanta airport by a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agent. The DEA agent seized a substantial amount of cash from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought a Fourth Amendment Bivens action in Nevada against the DEA agent.6 The Supreme Court in Walden recognized that, although a nonresident's physical presence is not required to create jurisdiction, the nonresident must have certain minimum contacts based on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Further, the defendant must create the contact because the minimum-contacts analysis focuses on the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside in the forum. Because all relevant conduct by the defendant occurred in Georgia, the Court found that Nevada lacked the requisite contacts with the defendant for personal jurisdiction.

The unanimous Court in Walden analyzed personal jurisdiction under the "effects" test of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), in which the Court had held that California had jurisdiction over the writer and the editor of a newspaper story that allegedly defamed the actress Shirley Jones, emphasizing that the defendants "aimed" their efforts at California, where Jones lived and where she would suffer the greatest harm. The Walden Court distinguished Calder because, in Calder, the contacts with California were ample and, most importantly, the reputation-based injury in California was necessary for the alleged libel to be actionable, and thus connected the defendants to California, not just to the plaintiff. In contrast, all of the DEA agent's relevant conduct in Walden occurred in Georgia.

The Supreme Court's decision in Walden never mentions McIntyre Machinery, decided a mere three years earlier. I believe Walden and McIntyre Machinery have similarities such that the Court's failure to address McIntyre Machinery in Walden is the reason I cannot say that the main opinion errs in applying Walden to the facts of the present case. The plaintiffs in both Walden and McIntyre Machinery suffered injuries in the forum state from conduct of the defendant that occurred out-side the forum.7 I also agree with the statement that "stream-of-commerce situations are merely a version of negligent-effects jurisdiction, and do not require special products-liability personal jurisdiction rules." Stanley Cox, Personal Jurisdiction for Alleged Intentional or Negligent Effects Matched to Forum Regulatory Interest, 19 Lewis & Clark L.Rev. 725, 742 (2015). Accordingly, the application of Walden to the present case may be proper in light of the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court as discussed. I note further that the Supreme Court was able to reach a consensus the first time it addressed products liability and stream of commerce in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and, indeed, the Walden Court discusses Woodson. In light of the absence of any clear guidance from the Supreme Court, applying the most recent case involving specific jurisdiction is the correct approach in the present case.

Based on the foregoing, I concur in part and concur in the result.

PARKER, Justice (dissenting).

It is well established that a party may waive its right to pursue a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Matthews v. Brookstone Stores, Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1223 (S.D.Ala.2006) (footnote omitted; emphasis added). In determining whether a party has so waived the personal-jurisdiction defense,

Matthews, 431 F.Supp.2d at 1224. Here, General Motors of Canada, Ltd., asserted the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in its answer filed on August 12, 2009. It was not until July 10, 2012, almost three years later, that General Motors of Canada further pursued this defense by filing a motion for a hearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction. I believe that this failure to litigate the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction for nearly three years constitutes a waiver of the defense. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting).

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 over [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 would render it `at home' in Alabama." 222 So.3d at 1125. In reaching this conclusion, the main opinion notes the facts that "GM Canada is not incorporated here," that "its principal place of business is in Canada," and that "[i]t manufactures, assembles, and sells its product in Canada." 222 So.3d at 1125. I take this opportunity, however, to emphasize that these facts do not preclude a finding of general jurisdiction where a corporation has "some . . . level of intensity of contact" that is "comparable" to incorporating or having a principal place of business in the forum. 222 So.3d at 1122.

In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), the Supreme Court identified a corporation's place of incorporation and its principal place of business as "the paradigm forum" for the exercise of general jurisdiction. 564 U.S. at 924, 131 S.Ct. 2846. But "paradigm" does not mean "exclusive." It means a "typical example or archetype." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 898 (11th ed.2003). Goodyear does not state that general jurisdiction is restricted only to the stated "paradigms." The Court's "paradigm" language does not rule out the possibility that a corporation might maintain, for example, two "headquarters," each bearing ultimate corporate responsibility for different "businesses" so that the corporation is "at home" in either location for a claim arising out of the business "headquartered" in that location. Thus it is that the Court stated in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014), that "Goodyear did not hold that a corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction only in a forum where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business; it simply typed those places paradigm all-purpose forums."

I also agree that "the inquiry as to general jurisdiction under Goodyear is not whether GM Canada's contacts with Alabama are in some way `continuous and systematic,' but whether its contacts with Alabama are so `continuous and systematic' that it is essentially `at home' here. 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846." 222 So.3d at 1125. I would not agree, however, with the main opinion that "the United States Supreme Court . . . recently restricted the scope of general jurisdiction by requiring that the foreign corporation have such contacts with the forum state so as to be `at home' there." 222 So.3d at 1122 (emphasis added). As is made clear by the authority quoted in Goodyear, the "so continuous and systematic" notion dates back to Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 nn. 8 and 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984), and, before that, to the first expression of the test in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 S.Ct. 95 (1945), whereas the notion of "`continuous activity of some sorts'" was rejected equally early:

Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 924-28, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (emphasis added).

In short, the test of "continuous and systematic general business contacts," properly understood, always has been and remains the standard. The Court sought with the "at home" metaphor simply to better explain what has always been, and still is, meant by that standard. What the Court was achieving in Goodyear was a rejection of the "continuous activity of some sorts within a state" test. Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 927, 131 S.Ct. 2846. Indeed, after explaining the need for a corporation to be "at home" in the forum state, the Court concluded its analysis by rearticulating its holding this way: "[The petitioners'] attenuated connections to the State. . . fall far short of the `the continuous and systematic general business contacts' necessary. . . ." 564 U.S. at 929, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (emphasis added).

B. Specific Jurisdiction

I respectfully disagree with the main opinion's conclusion that "the trial court correctly concluded that it did not have specific jurisdiction over GM Canada." 222 So.3d at 1141.

The touchstone of specific in personam jurisdiction since International Shoe Co. has been and continues to be what is "reasonable," particularly in the sense of what constitutes "fair play" and "substantial justice":

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (emphasis added). To those ends, the World-Wide Volkswagen Court also explained that the nonresident's conduct in relation to a state must be such that it "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Id. at 295, 100 S.Ct. 559. GM Canada, as the trial court found, easily satisfies the "reasonable-anticipation" criteria. See also Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635, 651 (Ala.2009) (holding that a manufacturer who knowingly manufactured products for distribution throughout the United States market (including Alabama) by a third party meets the "reasonable-anticipation" test as to Alabama).

As noted in the main opinion, GM Canada manufactures and sells hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year to General Motors Corporation, n/k/a Motors Liquidation Company ("MLC"), for the purpose of having those vehicles distributed throughout the United States market, including in Alabama. Despite this fact, the main opinion holds that GM Canada has insufficient contacts with Alabama to subject it to specific jurisdiction in a case arising out of an accident that occurred in Alabama and that involved one of the vehicles sold into the United States market, of which Alabama is a part. The main opinion bases its holding on the fact that GM Canada's distributor happened to introduce the particular GM Canada vehicle involved in the accident into the United States market by selling it to an automobile dealership in Pennsylvania, rather than to one in Alabama.

The main opinion relies squarely on the Supreme Court decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014). The main opinion makes much of the fact that Walden was "the United States Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on specific jurisdiction and the first case in many years to garner a unanimous Court on the subject," but it fails to provide the context for Walden. 222 So.3d at 1140.

Walden was a Bivens action, i.e., a suit based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), in which "the Supreme Court held that a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights by federal officers, acting under color of federal law, gives rise to a federal cause of action for damages for the unconstitutional conduct." Michael A. Rosenhouse, Annotation, Bivens Actions—United States Supreme Court Cases, 22 A.L.R. Fed.2d 159, § 2 (2007). The plaintiffs filed their action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against a Covington, Georgia, police officer who was working at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport as a deputized agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"). The DEA agent seized $97,000 from the plaintiffs located in their carry-on luggage during the plaintiffs' layover at the Atlanta airport on suspicion that the funds were proceeds from illegal drug activity. The plaintiffs protested that they were professional gamblers who lived in Nevada and that the money represented a "gambling `"bank"' and winnings." 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1119. Upon their return home to Las Vegas, the plaintiffs had their attorney contact the DEA agent to verify the legitimacy of the funds. The DEA agent nonetheless "helped draft an affidavit to show probable cause for forfeiture of the funds and forwarded that affidavit to a United States Attorney's Office in Georgia." Id. No forfeiture action was ever filed, and the funds ultimately were returned to the plaintiffs.

The Walden Court concluded that the Nevada federal district court lacked specific jurisdiction over the Georgia DEA agent because his only connection to Nevada was the fact that the plaintiffs returned to Nevada and therefore suffered a lack of access to the seized funds while they were in Nevada. The Court found that to allow the case to go forward in Nevada on such facts would "impermissibly allow[] a plaintiff's contacts with the defendant and forum to drive the jurisdictional analysis." 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1125. The Court explained that "[t]he proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way," and the reality was that the plaintiffs "would have experienced this same lack of access in California, Mississippi, or wherever else they might have traveled and found themselves wanting more money than they had." Id. In short, the defendant in Walden had no meaningful contacts whatsoever with the forum state, which is the likely reason for the unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court. See 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1124 (noting that the DEA agent "never traveled to, conducted activities within, contacted anyone in, or sent anything or anyone to Nevada").

Furthermore, the main opinion relies squarely on a particular, single sentence in Walden: "For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum." 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121. The main opinion asserts that, with this statement, the Walden Court "emphatically underscored the requirement that the claim against the defendant have a suit-related nexus with the forum state before specific jurisdiction can attach." 222 So.3d at 1140. The main opinion then cites several lower federal court products-liability cases in which, it says, courts exercised specific jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer when the same automobile that was involved in the accident that precipitated the action was sold in the forum state. The main opinion then states:

222 So.3d at 1141.

In support of its distinction, the main opinion cites Johnson v. Chrysler Canada Inc., 24 F.Supp.3d 1118 (N.D.Ala.2014); Rowland v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., No. 1:11CV183-SA-SAA, 2013 WL 3381512 (N.D.Miss. July 8, 2013) (unpublished opinion); King v. General Motors Corp., No. 5:11-cv-2269-AKK, 2012 WL 1340066 (N.D.Ala. April 18, 2012) (unpublished opinion); Graham v. Hamilton, Civil Action No. 3:11-609, 2012 WL 893748 (W.D.La. March 15, 2012) (unpublished opinion); Ray v. Ford Motor Co., No. CIV. A.307-CV-175-WH, 2008 WL 2756655 (M.D.Ala. July 11, 2008) (unpublished opinion); and Soria v. Chrysler Canada, Inc., 2011 IL App (2d) 101236, 958 N.E.2d 285, 354 Ill.Dec. 542 (2011).

A review of those cases shows that only in Graham did the court find the fact that the automobile in question was sold in the forum state to be significant in its specific-jurisdiction analysis. ("Here, the products liability claim rests on injuries sustained due to the allegedly defective vehicle manufactured by GM Canada and subsequently sold in Louisiana. Therefore, the Court finds that the cause of action arises out of GM Canada's forum-related contacts.") The fact that the subject automobile was sold in Alabama was not mentioned as important to the Johnson court's conclusion that "Chrysler Canada has constitutionally cognizable contacts with the State of Alabama." 24 F.Supp.3d at 1141. The same is true of the courts' analyses in King and Soria (King relied heavily on the analysis in Soria). The Rowland court did not indicate that the Chevrolet Lumina automobile involved in the subject accident was purchased in Mississippi, let alone that such fact was important to the court's conclusion that GM Canada had sufficient minimum contacts with Mississippi for the court to exercise specific jurisdiction over it. See Rowland ("The facts of the case at bar lean . . . in favor of finding minimum contacts" because "GM-Canada sold not thousands, but millions of cars to GM-USA over a ten-year span. And enough of those cars are distributed and sold in Mississippi to support forty-one Chevrolet dealers. . . . Based upon these facts, it is proper to exercise jurisdiction because it is foreseeable that GM-Canada's products would be sold in Mississippi."). The Ray court likewise made no mention of whether the subject Ford vehicle was sold in Alabama. It noted instead that "the evidence shows that Pontiac Coil knew that they were designing a product that would be marketed specifically to Ford, that it would be producing between 600,000 and 1,000,000 solenoids for use in Ford cars over the next three to five years, and knew or should have known that Ford markets its cars in every state in the Union, including Alabama."

Missing from the main opinion's litany of cases is Hatton v. Chrysler Canada, Inc., 937 F.Supp.2d 1356 (M.D.Fla. 2013). In Hatton, Carolina Hatton alleged that she was seriously injured as a passenger in a 1999 Chrysler 300M automobile that was involved in an accident in Lee County, Florida. In concluding that it had specific jurisdiction over Chrysler Canada, Inc., the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reasoned:

937 F.Supp.2d at 1366. The Hatton court made no mention of whether the subject automobile was sold in Florida. In fact, the court noted that "Count II alleges that Chrysler Canada designed and/or manufactured and assembled the 1999 Chrysler 300M and distributed and sold similar vehicles in Florida." 937 F.Supp.2d at 1363. Thus, it appears the subject vehicle was not sold in Florida.

Also worth noting is UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp. v. NCS Power, Inc., 844 F.Supp.2d 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), a case in which UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp., Inc. ("UTC"), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, sued NCS Power, Inc. ("NCS"), in New York federal district court alleging breach of contract and negligence in the design of lithium-ion batteries UTC purchased from NCS. "NCS is a Washington-based corporation that provides batteries and power supply equipment to customers throughout North America." 844 F.Supp.2d at 369. UTC placed the batteries in "`ActiveKEY,' a mobile device used by realtors to track listing information about properties and remotely unlock lock boxes." 844 F.Supp.2d at 369. NCS filed a third-party complaint asserting breach-of-contract, products-liability, and negligence claims against Yoku Energy Technology Ltd. ("Yoku"), a corporation headquartered in Hong Kong that operates a lithium-ion battery plant in Zhangzhou, China. NCS "serve[d] as Yoku's `agent/sales representative' for distribution of Yoku's lithium polymer battery products in North America." 844 F.Supp.2d at 369. In August 2007, UTC began placing orders with NCS for batteries to be placed in ActiveKEY devices. "More than 300,000 Yoku-manufactured batteries were delivered pursuant to the orders to UTC's premises in Salem, Oregon. . . . Upon receiving the battery shipments, UTC installed them into the ActiveKEY devices and distributed them to realtors, several of which were located in New York." 844 F.Supp.2d at 369-70. In April and May 2009, ActiveKEY batteries began to malfunction and to overheat during use. UTC alleged that it eventually had to replace 35,000 batteries supplied by NCS that had been manufactured by Yoku.

Yoku filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The federal district court noted that Yoku's agency agreement with NCS required that Yoku specifically approve all sales, that it shipped vast quantities of batteries for sale to the United States, and that it sold the batteries to a national company. See 844 F.Supp.2d at 376. Given those facts, the court concluded that "the record is sufficient to demonstrate that Yoku has availed itself of the benefits and protections of New York law in a manner that, while insufficient to support general jurisdiction under the New York statute, is sufficient to meet the constitutional minimum contact requirement." 844 F.Supp.2d at 377 (footnote omitted). Although some of the ActiveKEY devices ended up in New York, the batteries were not purchased by NCS or UTC in New York and the court did not rely on the number of devices that might have been distributed in New York to reach its conclusion.

More importantly, absent from the main opinion is any discussion of what actually constitutes "suit-related conduct" in a products-liability action involving, as it inherently does, issues of markets and "streams of commerce."8 In particular, missing from the main opinion's analysis is any discussion of how properly to understand the concept of "suit-related conduct" in a products-liability suit involving such issues—and in particular how to do so consistently with the abiding touchstones of personal-jurisdiction jurisprudence—the "first principles" of "reasonableness," "fair play," and "substantial justice" provided by International Shoe and World-Wide Volkswagen.

I would begin an examination of this substantive question by noting that the Walden Court itself observed that "[t]he inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant `focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation."'" 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1121 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), quoting in turn Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)). See also Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 817 F.3d 755, 759 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (observing that "[w]hat conduct is suit-related depends on `the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation,' Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), including specifically the nature of the claim asserted. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984); Walden, [571 U.S. at ___,] 134 S.Ct. at 1124 (`The strength of [the defendant's] connection [to California in Calder] was largely a function of the nature of the libel tort.')" (emphasis added)). In other words, the nature of the plaintiff's claims in a given case must be carefully compared to the nature of the conduct by which the defendant has some relationship with the forum.

In contrast to Walden, which was not a products-liability action and which in no way implicated any questions of the relevant market or the proper stream-of-commerce analysis, the case before us is an Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine action arising from an automobile accident. In such actions against a manufacturer that has designed and manufactured a product for distribution throughout the entire United States market, the defendant's "suit-related conduct" is in fact the design or manufacturing of such automobiles and the placement of them into the stream of commerce for that United States market. GM Canada's suit-related conduct of manufacturing vehicles for distribution by MLC throughout the United States is the reason GM Canada has a connection to any state, regardless of where MLC happens to place any one particular vehicle. See generally Ex parte DBI.9

I do not see how the fact that the particular automobile involved in this case was not sold in Alabama adequately addresses GM Canada's "suit-related conduct," given the reality of modern commerce and markets. And to the extent that the cases GM Canada cites can be said to support making this distinction, I do not understand how those authorities square their conclusions with the analysis in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, which, unlike Walden, was a products-liability action concerning an automobile accident.

As to the former point—the commercial realities of the modern marketplace—the principles we would recognize and apply in this case must work equally well in any number of scenarios. What if on the same Thanksgiving weekend in which Hinrichs was injured in Alabama by a GM Canada vehicle driven here from Pennsylvania, a man had been injured in Pennsylvania by a GM Canada vehicle driven from Alabama? If the same company markets that GM Canada vehicle nationwide, I cannot imagine that it would be "reasonable" to require the Alabama plaintiff to travel to Pennsylvania to litigate his grievance while simultaneously requiring the Pennsylvania plaintiff to travel to Alabama to litigate his, when the defendant in both cases is located in neither state and would have to travel to both of them anyway. "[T]he forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute," "the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief," and "the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies" all counsel in favor of finding specific jurisdiction in both scenarios.

Similarly, what if a company, although headquartered in New York, markets and sells substantial numbers of its product from multiple retail locations throughout New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut? If that tri-state area is the company's chosen market, why should it matter whether a New Jersey man injured in New Jersey by one of the defendant's products purchased that product from one of the defendant's stores in New Jersey or from one of the defendant's stores in New York? A fortiori, why should it matter to a bystander injured in New Jersey by one of the defendant's products whether its owner had purchased that particular product from one of the defendant's stores in New Jersey or one of the defendant's New York stores?

But one need not resort to hypotheticals to make the point. There is enough similarity in the facts of World-Wide Volks-wagen and this case—the central fact in both being that an automobile sold in one state caused injury in another—that the United States Supreme Court's emphasis in World-Wide Volkswagen of facts that are dissimilar to those of the present case is strongly indicative of the type of contacts that would support specific jurisdiction in just such a case:

World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. 559 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).

In addition to the obvious negative inferences to be drawn from this passage, in Goodyear the Court specifically quoted with approval the following more affirmative statement from World-Wide Volkswagen:

Goodyear, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2855 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. 559 (some emphasis added)).

In fact, the negative inferences from World-Wide Volkswagen and the affirmative statement of the same concept in Goodyear actually have been reflected for some time in a comment in the Restatement of Conflicts:

Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 37 comment e (rev. ed. 1988) (emphasis added).

The implication of World-Wide Volkswagen is that if the New York dealer and distributor had been actively marketing their products to Oklahoma customers, the mere fortuity that the injury-causing vehicle was purchased in New York would not have defeated jurisdiction in Oklahoma. GM Canada in this case seeks to enjoy the benefits of the sale of its vehicles in the whole of the United States market while at the same time avoiding "reasonable" obligations concomitant to such sales.

It is true that "the mere `unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.'" World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). That is the circumstance the Court analyzed in World-Wide Volkswagen, but is not at all what is presented here. Unlike the dealer and distributor in World-Wide Volkswagen, who had no "`contacts, ties, or relations'" with the forum state, 444 U.S. at 299, 100 S.Ct. 559 (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154), GM Canada is not deprived of fair play and substantial justice by being required to answer in Alabama for an accident that took place here involving one of the vehicles it chose to manufacture for sale into the nationwide market that includes this state. GM Canada certainly can "reasonably anticipate" being held to account in Alabama for injuries caused in this state by one of the vehicles it has designed and manufactured for a United States market that includes this state and, consequently, can take steps to withdraw any sale of its products in this state, to procure insurance applicable to any incidents occurring here or otherwise to "act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation." World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. 559.

It is "reasonable," "fair," and "substantially just" to conclude that the trial court has specific jurisdiction over GM Canada in this case.

WISE, J., concurs.

On Application for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

On June 24, 2016, this Court issued its opinion on original submission in an appeal filed by Florian Hinrichs affirming the judgment of the Geneva Circuit Court dismissing General Motors of Canada, Ltd. ("GM Canada"), as a defendant in this case on the basis that Alabama does not have specific jurisdiction over GM Canada.

Hinrichs argues on rehearing that this Court promulgated what he characterizes as a "single-fact rule" of special jurisdiction and that such a rule has been "rejected by most courts that have considered it."

Hinrichs's brief on rehearing, at 12. The opinion released on June 24 concluded:

Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., 222 So.3d 1114, 1141, 2016 WL 3461177 (Ala. June 24, 2016).

Hinrichs contends that he has found several cases "uphold[ing] specific jurisdiction where the stream of commerce for the product does not end in the forum state." In response, GM Canada argues that Hinrichs cites these cases because, GM Canada says, Hinrichs contends that they reject a "single-fact" place-of-sale rule in the stream-of-commerce context when the defendant has other contacts with the forum state. According to GM Canada, Hinrichs's argument fails because (1) this Court did not apply a single-fact rule and (2) GM Canada has no other suit-related contacts with Alabama. We agree.

Hinrichs first cites State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. McGraw, 237 W.Va. 573, 788 S.E.2d 319 (2016), a case in which a West Virginia resident was killed in West Virginia in a vehicular accident involving a Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle that was manufactured in Kentucky; sold by Ford, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan, to a dealership in Florida; sold in Florida to a Florida consumer; and sold used in West Virginia by a body shop to the decedent. The trial court found that Ford was "at home" in West Virginia and that, therefore, the court had general jurisdiction over Ford. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia did not embrace that conclusion and, after discussing the concept of specific jurisdiction, concluded that the record was inadequate and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its opinion the McGraw court declined "to use the place of sale as a per se rule to defeat specific jurisdiction" under a stream-of-commerce analysis. 788 S.E.2d at 343. GM Canada correctly notes that, even though the McGraw court did not use the original place of sale of the vehicle as a "per se rule" in determining specific jurisdiction where there was other evidence indicating that Ford targeted the forum state, the court specifically noted that "both the purchase of the Ford Explorer and the accident resulting in death took place in West Virginia." 788 S.E.2d at 343.

McGraw is therefore not a case in which the court upheld jurisdiction in a setting where the corporate defendant, an entity organized under the laws of a foreign country, did not have a network of its dealers or company-owned distributors in the forum state, as is the case here. Moreover, the McGraw court, while stating that "[t]he inquiry in specific jurisdiction `focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation [,]' Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. ___, ___, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014)," 788 S.E.2d at 335, fails to mention the language in Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014), that recognizes the requirement of suit-related activity in cases spanning the spectrum of actions based on contracts, taxation, products liability, and intentional torts. Indeed, the opinion also omits any discussion of the following language in Walden: "And it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State." 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S.Ct. at 1126.

The McGraw court distinguished and ultimately criticized Pitts v. Ford Motor Co., 127 F.Supp.3d 676 (S.D.Miss.2015), relied upon by Ford in McGraw, in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed a products-liability case against an automobile manufacturer for lack of jurisdiction when the purchase had not occurred in Mississippi. The McGraw court first noted that, unlike in Pitts, both the purchase and the accident occurred in West Virginia. Second, the McGraw court criticized the Pitts court, stating: "[T]he nexus analysis in Pitts [is] so rigid and formalistic as to undermine the precedent of World-Wide [Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 580, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980),] and its progeny." 788 S.E.2d at 343. But, quite tellingly, the Pitts court grounded its analysis with a direct quote from Walden focusing upon its requirement for suit-related conduct. The Pitts court stated:

127 F.Supp.3d at 684. As previously noted, the McGraw court does not deal with that aspect of Walden. Compare Searcy v. Parex Res., Inc., 496 S.W.3d 58, 70 (Tex. 2016)]:

We do not consider McGraw to be either on point or persuasive.

Hinrichs next cites Gothard v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2015-CA-002724-0000-00 (Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Florida, January 19, 2016), an order in which the trial court denied Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court's order provides no reasoning for its decision, and we decline Hinrichs's invitation to speculate as to its reasoning.

Hinrichs next cites Mayeaux v. DRV, LLC (Civ. No. 15-949, Jan. 8, 2016), 2016 WL 112704 (W.D.La.2016) (not reported in F. Supp. 3d). In Mayeaux, the trial court held that Louisiana had specific jurisdiction over the defendant, even though the plaintiffs purchased the allegedly defective product, a travel trailer, in Texas. The court stated:

Mayeaux, an unpublished federal district court opinion, completely ignores Walden, citing only a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case from 2006 and relying on facts not similar to those here presented. The plaintiffs in Mayeaux shopped for the product in the forum state, a state in which the defendant had qualified to do business, before purchasing the product in an adjacent state. Mayeaux is therefore not a case where the court upheld jurisdiction in a setting in which the corporate defendant, an entity organized under the laws of a foreign country, did not have a network of its dealers or company-owned distributors in the forum state, as is the case here. We do not consider Mayeaux to be either on point or persuasive.

Hinrichs next cites Mason v. Mooney Aircraft Corp. (No. 02-3323-CV-S-RED, May 8, 2003), 2003 WL 21244160 (W.D.Mo. 2003) (not reported in F. Supp.2d). In Mason, the plaintiff, an Arkansas resident, was injured when an aircraft manufactured by Mooney in which she was a passenger crashed in southern Missouri. In finding that Missouri had jurisdiction over the defendant, the court found it important that the defendant conducted business with authorized service centers in Missouri and advertised in trade publications circulated in Missouri. Of course, Mason was decided several years before Walden and is not persuasive.

Hinrichs next cites Harper v. Bridgestone, No. 2015-CP-40-03309 (Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, S.C., December 1, 2015), in which the trial court held that South Carolina had personal jurisdiction over defendant Ford Motor Company. Harper arose from a vehicular accident involving an alleged tire-tread separation. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was negligent in failing to remove the tire from service during a recall. The trial court found it relevant that Ford undertook a duty to recall the subject tire from the marketplace and that this recall was carried out by Ford dealerships across the country, including the dealership in South Carolina that had dealt with the subject vehicle and tire. Moreover, Ford admitted in Harper that it had advertised its automobiles in South Carolina on a continuous basis, that it was authorized to do business in South Carolina, and that it maintained a registered agent in South Carolina, none of which GM Canada did in Alabama. The Harper court relies entirely on pre-Walden authority. We deem Harper both distinguishable and not persuasive

Finally, Hinrichs cites Hedges v. Western Auto Supply Co., 161 Vt. 614, 640 A.2d 536 (1994), in which the trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The opinion did not disclose how the plaintiff came into possession of the heater that formed the basis of the claim. The court based jurisdiction on its finding that the market for the defendant's products was national, citing Charles Gendler & Co. v. Telecom Equipment Corp., 102 N.J. 460, 508 A.2d 1127 (1986), for the proposition that "distribution of products nationwide gives rise to reasonable expectation that manufacturer is subject to jurisdiction in every state." 161 Vt. at 615, 640 A.2d at 537. The holdings in Hedges and Charles Gendler are now directly contrary to Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014), which hold that a manufacturer is not automatically subject to jurisdiction in every state in which its products are sold.

In summary, of the foregoing cases, Mason and Hedges are pre-Walden cases decided without the benefit of the United States Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning personal jurisdiction. Harper is an opinion of a South Carolina trial court that relied on pre-Walden authority. Gothard is an opinion of a Florida trial court without any statement of supporting rationale. McGraw is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in which the court did not decide whether the defendant was subject to general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction because the court determined that it had an insufficient factual record on which to make such a ruling and then set forth guidelines for further proceedings below, disregarding the requirement of Walden for suit-related activity. Mayeaux completely ignores Walden. We therefore conclude that none of the cases cited by Hinrichs provides persuasive support for his application for rehearing.

The remaining issues raised by Hinrichs and the amici curiae in support having been thoroughly considered on original submission, the application for rehearing is overruled.

APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF JUNE 24, 2016, MODIFIED [BY SUBSTITUTION OF PAGES 4 AND 57].

Stuart, Bolin, and Main, JJ., and Lyons, Special Justice,* concur.

Parker, Murdock, and Wise, JJ., dissent.

Shaw, J., recuses himself.