Insufficient Minimum Contacts For California Jurisdiction.

A California resident owned an apartment building in Arkansas that was insured by a Michigan insurance company under a policy the owner obtained through an insurance agent in Arkansas. After fires damaged the building in Arkansas and the owner was not happy with the insurer’s payout, the owner sued the insurance company in California state court for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court’s order granting the insurance company’s motion to quash was affirmed by the appellate court because “there was no substantial nexus between the insurer’s activities in California and the present action because the owner is not suing the insurer for any California risk that came to fruition; he is suing the insurer because of something that happened to his business property in Arkansas, which is where he obtained the insurance at issue, the main purpose of which was to cover potential risks and damage to that Arkansas property.” (Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Cal. App. Third Dist.; January 27, 2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 783, [182 Cal.Rptr.3d 873].)