Scalise v. Beech Aircraft Corporation

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 1967 · Corporations

276 F. Supp. 58 (1967)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationspersonal jurisdictionservice of processparent-subsidiary relationshipsdoing businessparent corporationsubsidiaryalter ego

Facts

Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death and survival action after James Scalise died in a plane crash in New Jersey while receiving flight instruction in a plane owned by Atlantic. Plaintiffs attempted service at the Philadelphia airport offices of Atlantic Aviation Service, Inc. and Atlantic Philadelphia, Inc., both wholly owned subsidiaries of Atlantic; Service had been a Beech distributor and dealer, and Atlantic Philadelphia was Beech's regional distributor at the time of service. As to Atlantic, the record showed common ownership, overlapping officers and directors, and some shared administrative arrangements, but the subsidiaries kept separate books, tax returns, meetings, bank accounts, contracts, and operations and dealt independently with customers and suppliers. As to Beech, the 1966 distributor agreement with Atlantic Philadelphia gave Beech broad authority over personnel, facilities, parts, reporting, advertising, inspections, and marketing activity, and Beech personnel regularly entered Pennsylvania to direct and assist the distributor's operations.

Issue

Whether service on Atlantic's Pennsylvania subsidiaries subjected Atlantic Aviation Corporation to this court's jurisdiction because Atlantic was doing business in Pennsylvania through them, and whether service on Beech's Pennsylvania distributor subjected Beech Aircraft Corporation to jurisdiction because Beech was doing business in Pennsylvania at the time of service. The court also considered whether the relevant contacts existed at the time service was attempted.

Rule

A nonresident parent is not subject to jurisdiction through a subsidiary merely because it wholly owns the subsidiary or shares officers or directors with it; the decisive question is how control is exercised, and jurisdiction requires a showing that the subsidiary is the parent's alter ego or agent rather than a genuinely separate corporation observing corporate formalities. A foreign manufacturer is present and amenable to service if, at the time of service, it exercises such extensive control and supervision over its in-state distributor that it is doing business in the state.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Linden Aerotech, a Nevada corporation based in Reno, wholly owns Harbor Flight Center, a Pennsylvania corporation operating in Pittsburgh. The two companies share the same president and most directors, but Harbor keeps separate books, tax returns, bank accounts, contracts, payroll, and customer relationships, and it pays its own debts.

A plaintiff sues Linden in federal court in Pennsylvania on a claim arising from an accident in Ohio and serves process at Harbor's Pittsburgh office. Is service on Linden most likely proper?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a nonresident parent is not subject to jurisdiction through its subsidiary merely because it owns all the stock or shares officers and directors. The decisive question is how control is exercised. Where the subsidiary maintains separate books, tax returns, bank accounts, contracts, operations, and responsibility for its own debts, the court will respect the separate corporate existence and quash service on the parent. (Derived from Scalise v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (1967).)