HARRISBURG - Solar energy company Sunlion Energy Systems Inc. did not demonstrate personal jurisdiction over a Maryland family farm it sued over a solar project.
Superior Court Judge William Platt wrote a nine-page ruling on Aug. 14 affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County decision in a lawsuit against Jones Family Farm, Lester C. Jones & Sons, Inc., and Energy Systems And Installations.
The Jones parties and Energy Systems were sued by Sunlion in 2016 after problems in the construction of a solar energy system at the Jones' farm.
On Aug. 21, 2012, the Jones family discussed the installation of a solar power array on the Jones Family Farm in Maryland. The discussion was the result of a cold-call by Sunlion.
Sunlion alleged it provided a contract for and completed the next phase of work. It was paid $40,000.
Sunlion alleges that the Jones parties requested a copy of the drawings and design for the solar power system for their review and that said documents were loaned to them with the understanding that they remained the property of Sunlion.
Sunlion also contended that the Jones parties stopped payment on the $40,000 check, reneged on their contractual obligation and repeatedly refused to return the drawings and designs.
It accused the family of giving drawings and designs to a competitor, Energy Systems, which allegedly used them to complete the solar project on the Jones Family Farm.
Sunlion filed preliminary objections on Sep. 8, 2016, claiming lack of personal jurisdiction, since the Jones parties are residents of Maryland.
The objection was sustained on Aug. 31, 2017.
In the ruling, the Superior Court affirmed the lower court decision, stating that, "By merely entering into a contract with a Pennsylvania corporation, making several follow-up telephone calls and sending a payment invoice, it cannot be said that [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of our state’s benefits and protections such that it could reasonably anticipate being called to defend itself in our courts," and, as a result, "the evidence established that the contract in this case was not formed in Pennsylvania."
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case number 1452 MDA 2017