Scott Crabtree v. Aon Insurance Managers (Bermuda) Ltd.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-1959
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1959 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1959

SCOTT A. CRABTREE; A. JOSEPH WILKINS, JR.; TIMOTHY POHANKA; THE POHANKA GRANDCHILDREN’S IRR TRUST; THE GEOFFREY P. POHANKA 2004 FAMILY TRUST,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

AON INSURANCE MANAGERS (BERMUDA) LTD.; JOHN DOES 1-20,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00493-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: December 13, 2024 Decided: March 28, 2025

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John T. Bergin, Washington, D.C., Adam H. Charnes, Craig D. Cannon, James J. Hefferan, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Raymond O. Aghaian, Los Angeles, California, Samuel Z. Hyams, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellants. Lauren A. Champaign, FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1959 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Scott A. Crabtree, A. Joseph Wilkins, Jr., Timothy Pohanka, the Pohanka

Grandchildren’s IRR Trust, and the Geoffrey O. Pohanka 2004 Family Trust (collectively

“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s order granting Aon Insurance Managers (Bermuda)

Ltd.’s (“Aon”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs claim that Aon had sufficient contacts with Virginia—the forum state—and,

therefore, the court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s ruling that it lacks personal jurisdiction under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344, 350 (4th Cir.

2020). “Under Rule 12(b)(2), a defendant must affirmatively raise a personal jurisdiction

challenge, but the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction at every

stage following such a challenge.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The plaintiff

must establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence but need only make

a prima facie showing.” Id.; see Grayson v. Anderson, 816 F.3d 262, 269 (4th Cir. 2016).

In considering whether a plaintiff has met this burden, a court may “look beyond the

complaint to affidavits and exhibits in order to assure itself of personal jurisdiction.”

Kurbanov, 963 F.3d at 350; see Grayson, 816 F.3d at 269 (noting that, in resolving Rule

12(b)(2) motion, district court may “consider jurisdictional evidence in the form of

depositions, interrogatory answers, admissions, or other appropriate forms”). “A court

must also construe all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable inferences for the existence of

jurisdiction.” Kurbanov, 963 F.3d at 350 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1959 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

A court may exercise two types of personal jurisdiction—general and specific.

Plaintiffs do not assert that the district court had general personal jurisdiction over Aon.

Where, as here, “a federal court sits in diversity, it has personal jurisdiction over a non-

resident defendant if (1) an applicable state long-arm statute confers jurisdiction and (2)

the assertion of that jurisdiction is consistent with constitutional due process.” Perdue

Foods LLC v. BRF S.A., 814 F.3d 185, 188 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “Because Virginia’s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the outer

bounds of due process, the two-prong test collapses into a single inquiry when Virginia is

the forum state.” Tire Eng’g and Distrib., LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., Ltd.,

682 F.3d 292, 301 (4th Cir. 2012).

To meet the constitutional due process requirements for personal jurisdiction, Aon

must have “minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Kurbanov, 963 F.3d at 351 (internal

quotation marks omitted). This inquiry requires that Plaintiffs show that Aon “purposefully

directed [its] activities at residents of the forum” and that the litigation results “from alleged

injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471

U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court

has emphasized that the minimum contacts analysis focuses “on the relationship among the

defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014). This

relationship must have two necessary aspects: first, the defendant must have created the

contacts with the forum itself, and second, the “minimum contacts analysis looks to the

defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1959 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/28/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

who reside there.” Id. at 284-85 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Ford Motor Co.

v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (“In giving content to the [due

process] formulation, the [Supreme] Court has long focused on the nature and extent of the

defendant’s relationship to the forum State.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have previously synthesized the due process requirements for asserting personal

jurisdiction into a three-prong test: “(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully

availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiffs’

claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of

personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” Kurbanov, 963 F.3d at 351-

52 (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff “must prevail on each prong.” Perdue

Foods LLC, 814 F.3d at 189.

The district court correctly concluded that Aon’s contacts with Virginia were not

sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Aon’s limited communications with Plaintiffs

do not constitute purposeful availment of Virginia’s laws. Aon’s connection to Plaintiffs

was facilitated solely through a contractual relationship with two companies that are

nonresidents of Virginia. Only through performing its contractual duties to manage

disbursements did Aon contact Virginia residents. Aon’s emails, phone calls, wire

transfers, and mailings to Virginia residents as part of its contractual duties are not

connections that are typically associated with purposeful availment—including physical

presence, soliciting business, or making in-person contact in the state. Therefore, Plaintiffs

failed to demonstrate that Aon purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting

business in Virginia.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1959 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/28/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

However, a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, “because a

court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the

merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands,

LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED