Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MOTOR VEHICLES—E.D. Wis.: Kia denied dismissal of claims in stolen vehicles case; Hyundai dismissed from suit, (May 7, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The subject vehicles’ design affiliate was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as it only provided design and engineering services outside the forum, while claims against the distributor survived.

In a suit brought against a vehicle distributor and design affiliate by two injured drivers who sustained serious injuries in separate collisions caused by stolen Kia vehicles, a federal district court in Wisconsin denied the distributor’s motion to dismiss and granted the affiliate’s dismissal motion. The court found that the affiliate did not manufacture, sell, or distribute vehicles in the state, and the drivers failed to identify any other in-forum contact that would satisfy the state’s long-arm jurisdictional statute. The distributor was not shielded from liability by public policy concerns because the alleged design defect of failing to incorporate anti-theft features was plausibly connected to foreseeable theft-related harm (Cleaves-Moore v. Kia America, Inc., No. 26-C-131 (E.D. Wis. May. 4, 2026)).

Background. Two drivers brought suit after suffering serious injuries in separate collisions involving stolen Kia vehicles driven by third parties. The first incident arose when a stolen 2016 Kia Optima ran a stop sign and collided with a driver’s vehicle, causing disabling injuries requiring surgery and continued treatment. The second occurred weeks later when a stolen Kia Sportage, fleeing police after an armed robbery, ran a red light and struck another driver’s vehicle, killing a passenger and seriously injuring the driver. The drivers alleged that the vehicles were defectively designed because they lacked basic anti-theft protections—including immobilizers, intrusion-sensitive alarms, steering column protections, and secure ignition systems—making them unusually easy to steal and contributing to a widespread auto-theft surge in Milwaukee. They asserted design defect claims under Wisconsin law and negligence claims against the Korean manufacturer, Kia Corporation; its American subsidiary, Kia America, Inc. (Kia); the vehicles’ design affiliate, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. (HATCI); and three other entities. Kia removed the suit and sought to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), while Hyundai moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).

Jurisdiction. To establish personal jurisdiction, the claimants were required to make a prima facie showing that the affiliate satisfied Wisconsin’s long-arm statute and due process requirements. Under Wis. Stat. § 801.05(4)(b), jurisdiction may exist where a defendant processes, services, or manufactures products used in the state that cause injury. The drivers alleged that the affiliate designed and engineered vehicles sold nationwide and was involved in their manufacture and compliance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, Hyundai submitted an unrebutted declaration establishing that it did not manufacture, distribute, market, or sell vehicles and only provided certain design, engineering, testing, and certification services from outside the state. HATCI had no operations, employees, property, agent for service, or business activity in Wisconsin. It did not have any contacts with Wisconsin dealerships, send personnel there to advise on theft-related issues, or engage in any sales or training activities with the dealerships. The court held that providing design and engineering services did not constitute processing, servicing, or manufacturing products within the meaning of the long-arm statute. Because the drivers failed to submit any contrary evidence, the declaration was accepted as true under Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003), and there was no prima facie basis for jurisdiction. The court dismissed HATCI and denied jurisdictional discovery because the drivers failed to make a colorable showing of jurisdiction, as required by Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2000).

Public policy. Kia did not challenge the sufficiency of the pleaded elements of design defect or negligence under Wisconsin law, which require allegations of a defective condition, unreasonable danger, causation, and resulting damages. Instead, it argued that public policy barred liability because the injuries were caused by criminal acts of third-party car thieves and imposing liability would place an unreasonable burden on auto distributors. Under Wisconsin law, even where causation is established, liability may be precluded if one of six public policy factors applies, including remoteness of injury, disproportionality, extraordinary results, unreasonable burden, risk of fraudulent claims, or lack of a sensible stopping point. Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68. The distributor relied on cases involving negligent vehicle owners, such as Meihost v. Meihost, 29 Wis. 2d 537 (1966), and Lichter v. Fritsch, 77 Wis. 2d 178 (1977), where courts declined to impose liability for injuries caused by stolen vehicles on owners as they could not have anticipated a theft and the resulting harm. The court distinguished those cases, emphasizing that they involved individual owners who negligently left keys in vehicles, whereas the present case involved alleged systemic design defects in vehicles distributed nationwide. Unlike isolated acts of carelessness, the alleged defect was a built-in condition affecting all vehicles of the same type.

Foreseeability and causation. The court relied on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 449, adopted in Schneider Fuel & Supply Co. v. Thomas H. Bentley & Son, Inc., 26 Wis. 2d 549 (1965), which provides that intervening criminal acts do not break the chain of causation where the risk of such acts is the very hazard that makes the defendant’s conduct negligent. Applying this principle, the court found that the alleged failure to include anti-theft mechanisms directly implicated the risk of theft and subsequent reckless driving. The complaint plausibly alleged that theft of such vehicles was foreseeable and that stolen vehicles pose a known hazard to public safety, particularly through high-speed pursuits and collisions. Thus, the alleged injuries were not too remote, disproportionate, or extraordinary, but rather the type of harm that could reasonably result from the alleged design choices. Allowing recovery would not open the door to fraudulent claims since automobile collisions resulting in serious injuries are typically well investigated, and would not create limitless liability because eliminating the alleged defect would provide a clear stopping point. Further, Kia was already defending class actions pertaining to an epidemic of Kia thefts, and barring personal injury claims while allowing related economic loss claims in ongoing litigation involving the same alleged defect would be inconsistent. As such, the claims against the distributor were allowed to proceed.

The case is No. 26-C-131.

Judge: Griesbach, W.

Attorneys: Michael J. Cerjak (Barton Cerjak SC) for Tiffiney Cleaves-Moore and Tamika Nicholson. Denean K Sturino (O'Hagan Meyer) for Kia America Inc. and Kia Corp.

Companies: Kia America Inc.; Kia Corp.

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews MotorVehiclesNews MotorEquipmentNews JurisdictionNews CausationNews WisconsinNews