The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a Wisconsin bar owner's extensive radio advertising to Twin Cities audiences created minimum contacts supporting Minnesota personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state bar in a contribution action.
Outcome: Reversed for appellant.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1991, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
What happened
The facts of the case, in plain language.
In March 1981, 18-year-old Robert Messetler was killed in a two-car accident near Stillwater, Minnesota, after a night of drinking at Dibbo's Bar in Hudson, Wisconsin; his blood alcohol concentration was .21.
The trial court granted Dibbo's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, treated as a motion for summary judgment.
At the time of the accident, Westin advertised Dibbo's Bar exclusively on Twin Cities radio station KQRS-FM, whose target audience was persons aged 18 to 30, running thirty-second commercials an average of 10 to 15 times per week.
The court held that Westin's 1981 purchase of more than $20,000 in goods and services in Minnesota was not by itself a sufficient contact to support personal jurisdiction.
Because Westin actively solicited Minnesota customers through extensive radio advertising, it purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in Minnesota and should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there.
What the court decided
After 18-year-old Robert Messetler died in a March 1981 crash near Stillwater with a blood alcohol concentration of .21 following a night of drinking at Dibbo's Bar in Hudson, Wisconsin, his automobile insurer, BLC Insurance Co., settled claims from the accident and sued the bar's owner, Westin, Inc., for contribution in Minnesota. The trial court granted Westin's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, treated as a summary-judgment motion. The court of appeals reversed. Under Minnesota's five-factor minimum contacts test, Westin's radio advertising on a Twin Cities station from November 1979 to November 1982—as many as fifteen thirty-second commercials per week, costing approximately $23,000—was purposeful and active solicitation of Minnesota customers, so Westin should have reasonably anticipated being haled into a Minnesota court. Its $20,000 in Minnesota purchases alone would have been insufficient.
- A nonresident business that purposefully and actively solicits forum-state customers through sustained, targeted advertising should reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum state's courts, and such advertising contacts satisfy the minimum-contacts requirement of due process. (*755)
- A nonresident defendant's purchases of goods and services within the forum state, without active solicitation of forum customers, do not constitute sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction. (*754)
- Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.06, a plaintiff's invocation of one provision of the long-arm statute may be construed as reliance on another plainly applicable provision when doing so serves substantial justice.
How the court reached its decision
The court's reasoning, step by step.
Whether Westin, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation operating Dibbo's Bar in Hudson, Wisconsin, had sufficient minimum contacts with Minnesota to permit Minnesota courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over it consistently with due process. Westin's purchase of more than $20,000 in Minnesota goods and services was not itself a sufficient contact, consistent with Janssen v. Johnson, where a Wisconsin bar owner's only Minnesota contacts were supply purchases and hiring local counsel and the absence of active solicitation was decisive. Here, however, Westin advertised exclusively on Twin Cities station KQRS-FM, whose target audience was persons aged 18 to 30, from November 1979 through November 1982, running ten to fifteen thirty-second commercials per week at a cost of approximately $23,000 across 1980 and 1981, with scripts approved by Dibbo's; that conduct was purposeful and active solicitation of Minnesota customers. West American Insurance Co. v. Westin, which denied jurisdiction over the same defendant for a 1978 accident, was distinguishable because its sole contact was a hearsay allegation about where accident victims had been drinking and that accident predated the KQRS campaign; Justice Wahl's special concurrence confirmed that solicitation-type contacts would have supported jurisdiction. Westin's purposeful advertising behavior gave it reason to reasonably anticipate being haled into a Minnesota court, so it possessed the requisite minimum contacts, and the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was reversed.
Whether BLC's contribution action fell within Minnesota's long-arm statute notwithstanding its invocation of a different subsection of Minn. Stat. § 543.19. BLC had invoked subdivision 1 ('commits any act in Minnesota'). Under the former 'commits any tort in Minnesota' clause as construed in Anderson v. Luitjens, an injury occurring in Minnesota constituted commission of a tort in the state, rendering clause (d) superfluous; the legislature responded in 1978 by substituting 'act' for 'tort' in clauses (c) and (d). Because Messetler was injured in Minnesota by conduct occurring outside the state, clause (d) was clearly applicable, and Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.06 required construing the pleadings to do substantial justice. The court treated BLC as having relied on section 543.19, subd. 1(d), permitting the analysis to proceed to whether due process allowed the exercise of jurisdiction.
Key quotes from the opinion
Notable passages from the opinion, in the court's own words.
Cases the court relied on
Earlier decisions the court cited as authority for its ruling.
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Now Foods Corp. v. Madison Equipment Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Erickson for and on Behalf of Erickson v. Spore (D. Minn. 1985)
- Williams v. Lakeview Co. (Ariz. 2000)
- Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Kent Trading Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
- Lawson v. Darrington (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Meyers v. Kallestead (Iowa 1991)
- Makopoulos v. Walt Disney World, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
- Stangel v. Rucker (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Busch v. Mann (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc. (8th Cir. 1985)
- Cantor v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Dataserv Equipment, Inc. v. Technology Finance Leasing Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc. (8th Cir. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Full opinion
The complete text of the court's opinion as published.
Opinion
OPINION
Appellant BLC Insurance Co. commenced this contribution action against Respondent Westin, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation which owns and operates Dibbo’s Bar in Hudson, Wisconsin, following settlements it made in a fatal accident. Dibbo’s motion for dismissal for lack ■ of personal jurisdiction, treated as one for summary judgment, was granted. We reverse.
FACTS
In March 1981, Robert Messetler, age 18, was killed in a two-car accident near Still-water, Minnesota. Messetler was returning to Minnesota after a night of drinking at Dibbo’s Bar in Hudson, Wisconsin, located on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. His blood alcohol concentration was .21. The two passengers in Messetler’s car and the driver of the other car were seriously injured. Messetler’s automobile was insured by appellant BLC Insurance Co. Wisconsin’s drinking age at the time of the accident was 18, while Minnesota’s was 19.
Dibbo’s is owned and operated by respondent Westin, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation. At the time of the accident, Westin, on behalf of Dibbo’s, was advertising on only one Twin City radio station, KQRS-FM. KQRS’s target audience are persons between the ages of 18 and 30. Dibbo’s Bar first advertised on KQRS in 1979, running twelve commercials between November 20 and November 24,1979. From March 1980 through November 1982, Dibbo’s began to advertise by 30 second commercials on an average of 10 to 15 times per week. The scripts informing listeners of daily drink specials were always approved by Dibbo’s. The advertising cost approximately $11,000 in 1980 and $12,000 in 1981. In 1981, Wes-tin purchased in excess of $20,000 of goods and services, excluding advertisement costs, in Minnesota.
ISSUE
Did Westin, Inc. have the requisite minimum contacts with Minnesota to permit Minnesota to exercise personal jurisdiction over it?
ANALYSIS
Westin argues it does not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with Minnesota so as to permit a constitutional exercise of personal jurisdiction under Minnesota’s long-arm statute. The long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when that corporation commits an act outside of Minnesota that causes injury or property damage inside the state. Minn. Stat. § 543.19, subd. 1(d) (1982).
We realize BLC relied on section 543.19, subd. 1 — “Commits any act in Minnesota” —when it commenced the present action against Westin. Under the former language of clause (c) — “Commits any tort in Minnesota” — BLC would have had jurisdic *754 tion. The supreme court in Anderson v. Luitjens, 311 Minn. 203, 247 N.W.2d 913 (1976), interpreted the former language so that an injury occurring in Minnesota constituted commission of a tort in the state. Id. at 206, 247 N.W.2d at 915. Because Messetler was injured in Minnesota, clause (c) would have been applicable. This rendered superfluous clause (d) which provided for jurisdiction when a tort was committed “outside of Minnesota causing injury or property damage within Minnesota.” In response to the court’s decision in Lu-itjens, the legislature amended the statute by, inter alia, substituting the word “act” to replace the word “tort” in clauses (c) and (d). 1978 Minn.Laws ch. 780, § 2. Because we believe clause (d) — “Commits any act outside Minnesota causing injury or property damage” — is clearly applicable to this case, we will treat BLC as having relied on the same. “All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Minn.R.Civ.P. 8.06.
“Minnesota interprets its long-arm statute * * * to extend personal jurisdiction in its courts to the limits of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Mid-West Medical, Inc. v. Kremmling Medical-Surgical Associates, 352 N.W.2d 59, 60 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Due process requires sufficient minimum contacts between the nonresident defendant and the forum state so that requiring them to defend in the state does not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). “[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The nonresident must be able to reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum state’s court. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).
Minnesota has adopted the following five factor test:
An analysis of minimum contacts requires consideration of (1) the quantity of contacts, (2) the nature and quality of contacts, (3) the source and connection of those contacts to the cause of action, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) the convenience of the parties.
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Service, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn. 1983). The first three factors are the primary factors. Rostad v. On-Deck, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 95, 98 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984).
Westin’s 1981 purchase of goods and services in Minnesota was not in itself a sufficient contact with Minnesota. Janssen v. Johnson, 358 N.W.2d 117 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); see Dent-Air, Inc., 332 N.W.2d at 907. In Janssen, we held that Johnson, a Wisconsin bar owner, did not have sufficient contacts to permit Minnesota courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over him, where the only Minnesota contacts were purchasing bar supplies and equipment from a St. Paul supplier and hiring a Minnesota attorney. We noted, however, that Johnson did not “actively solicit” Minnesota patrons and that “a decisive fact is that Johnson never advertised in Minnesota newspapers after he purchased the bar.” Id. at 120.
In the present case, Westin actively solicited Minnesota customers. Westin advertised extensively in Minnesota from November 1979 to November 1982 through as many as 15 commercials per week, each commercial about 30 seconds in length, costing approximately $23,000 between 1980 and 1981. Such conduct is a purposeful and active solicitation of Minnesota customers.
Westin relies heavily on the supreme court’s decision in West American Insur *755 ance Co. v. Westin, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 1983), which also involved the issue of personal jurisdiction over Westin in a 1978 drinking related accident. We find that case to be distinguishable because in West American, the sole contact between Westin and Minnesota was a hearsay allegation that Minnesota Highway Patrol officers would testify that of the young people who are involved in drinking related accidents on the Minnesota side of the Hudson Bridge, 75% had been drinking at Dibbo’s. Id. at 678.
The accident in West American occurred on November 17, 1978, a year prior to Dibbo’s advertising on KQRS. As Justice Wahl stated in West American: “Had solicitation-type contacts been alleged, * * * jurisdiction could have been constitutionally exercised.” Id. at 681 (Wahl, J., concurring specially). The purposeful behavior of Westin in its advertising program in Minnesota is such that it should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court here. World-Wide, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567.
DECISION
Westin, Inc. has the requisite minimum contacts with Minnesota to permit Minnesota to exercise personal jurisdiction over it.
Reversed.
Continue your research
- Minnesota decisions applying the five-factor minimum contacts test to advertising-based personal jurisdiction
- Cases citing BLC Insurance Co. v. Westin on jurisdiction over out-of-state taverns and dram-shop contribution claims
- Secondary sources on specific jurisdiction and purposeful availment through targeted media advertising
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.