Veil-Piercing Defense Lessons From Kumho Tire Case

Law360 (October 28, 2020, 5:10 PM EDT) -- When most litigators hear the name "Kumho Tire," they think of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision on the admissibility of expert testimony.[1] But a more recent Kumho Tire case has new lessons for litigators — not on expert testimony, but on the all-too-common practice of plaintiffs asserting veil-piercing or alter ego allegations to obtain personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporate parent.

In Jahner v. Kumho Tire USA Inc., a wrongful death products liability action, the plaintiffs sought personal jurisdiction in federal court in South Dakota over the South Korean parent company of U.S. subsidiary Kumho Tire USA. Though the parent...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Beta
Ask a question!