A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure.
Background of the Case
King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
The Personal Jurisdiction Issue
The central issue on appeal was whether Washington courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer whose products entered the state through distributors and related entities.
The court analyzed the issue under Washington's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185, and federal due process principles, which require that a defendant have sufficient "minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Specifically, due process requires three elements:
- Purposeful minimum contacts with the forum.
- Claims arising out of or relating to those contacts; and
- Jurisdiction is reasonable and consistent with fair play and substantial justice. Daniels v. Sommers, 32 Wn. App.2d 482, 494, 556 P.3d 1113 (2024).
Purposeful availment requires that the defendant deliberately engage with the forum state, not merely have contacts that are "random, isolated, or fortuitous." Downing v. Losvar, 21 Wn. App.2d 635, 654, 507 P.3d 894 (2022).
The Court's Analysis
Applying this framework, the court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Aquatherm purposefully availed itself of Washington. The court emphasized that Aquatherm's conduct went far beyond placing a product into the stream of commerce. While mere foreseeability is insufficient, additional conduct, such as targeting the forum market, can establish jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)).
Here, substantial evidence supported purposeful availment:
- Aquatherm shipped pipe directly from Germany to Washington for the project.
- Its managing director traveled to Seattle to support the project.
- It invited project engineers to Germany during installation.
- It actively communicated with Washington-based participants throughout the project.
- It performed warranty investigation and repair work in Washington, and
- It petitioned to change Washington plumbing codes to facilitate product approval.
Based on these facts, the court concluded that the manufacturer did more than merely place products into the stream of commerce. Instead, it purposefully directed its activities toward the United States market, including Washington. The court held that this level of involvement satisfied the purposeful availment requirement and supported the exercise of specific jurisdiction.
Purposeful Availment and the Stream of Commerce
The decision reflects the continuing evolution of personal jurisdiction law in product liability and construction defect cases involving foreign manufacturers. Aquatherm argued its conduct amounted only to placing products into the stream of commerce. The court rejected that characterization.
While Washington courts recognize that isolated or third party-driven sales are insufficient, jurisdiction may exist where a defendant takes additional steps to serve the forum market. State v. LG Elecs., Inc., 186 Wn.2d 169, 176-77, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016), 186 Wn.2d at 177-78. The court relied on Downing, 21 Wn.App. at 664, which identifies conduct demonstrating purposeful availment, including:
- Designing products for the forum market.
- Advertising in the forum.
- Establishing channels for customer support; and
- Using distributors to target the forum state.
Aquatherm's conduct fit squarely within these parameters. Its actions were not passive or incidental. Rather, they reflected an intentional effort to penetrate and expand within the Washington market.
Warranties and Ongoing Obligations
The court also rejected Aquatherm's argument that its warranties were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Although a contract alone is not dispositive, courts must examine the broader course of dealing. Freestone Cap. Partners L.P. v MKA Real Estate Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 155 Wn. App. 643, 653, 230 P.3d 625 (2010).
Relying heavily on Raymond v. Robison, 104 Wn. App. 627, 15 P.3d 697 (2001), the court emphasized that warranties create ongoing obligations tying a defendant to the forum state. In Raymond, jurisdiction was proper where a nonresident defendant advertised nationally, sold products to a Washington resident, and performed warranty work in Washington.
The same occurred in Aquatherm:
- Issued warranties directly tied to Washington projects.
- Responded to installation questions affecting warranty coverage, and
- Performed warranty investigation and repair work in Washington over multiple years.
These ongoing obligations strengthened the connection between the defendant and the forum.
Distribution Networks and Market Exploitation
Aquatherm further argued that its distribution agreements were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The court again disagreed. Distinguishing Montgomery v. Air Serv Corp., Inc. 9 Wn. App.2d 532, 446 P.3d 659 (2019), the court emphasized that jurisdiction fails where there is no meaningful link between the defendant's conduct and the forum.
In the case at hand, Aquatherm:
- Structured distribution agreements specifically to increase sales in Washington.
- Used a manufacturer's representative assigned to Washington territory.
- Required uniform branding across entities, and
- Took affirmative steps to expand its market within the state, including regulatory advocacy.
These actions demonstrated intentional market exploitation, not incidental product flow.
Fairness and Reasonableness
The court concluded that exercising jurisdiction was reasonable. Once the plaintiff establishes minimum contacts, the burden shifts to the defendant to show jurisdiction is inconsistent with fair play and substantial justice. State v. AU Optronics Corp., 180 Wn. App. 903, 914-15, 328 P.3d 919 (2014).
Aquatherm failed to meet that burden. The court emphasized Washington's strong interest in adjudicating disputes involving defective products used in public infrastructure and the direct relationship between Aquatherm's forum contacts and the claims.
Implications for Construction Litigation
The decision carries significant implications for construction and product liability litigation involving global supply chains. First, it reinforces that jurisdiction will turn on practical engagement with the forum, not formal corporate separation. Manufacturers cannot avoid jurisdiction simply by operating through distributors. Second, it highlights ongoing obligations, particularly warranties and post-sale involvement, can be decisive in establishing jurisdiction. Third, it confirms that targeted efforts to expand a market, including regulatory advocacy and direct project involvement, will weigh heavily in the analysis.
Conclusion
In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, the Washington Court of Appeals reaffirmed a core principle of modern jurisdictional doctrine. When a foreign manufacturer deliberately engages with a forum state- through distribution networks, direct involvement, and ongoing obligations- it can be required to answer for alleged defects in that forum. For the construction industry, the message is clear. Participation in a nation-wide or state-specific market carries with it the corresponding risk of litigation where those products are ultimately used.
