UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court: Iowa courts lack jurisdiction to hear suit against Indiana trucking company

by Rox Laird | January 9, 2026

Does a foreign corporation consent to the jurisdiction of Iowa’s courts when it registers with the Secretary of State to do business in this state, appoints an agent in Iowa for service of process, and is served with notice of a lawsuit through its Iowa agent?

That is the question put to the Iowa Supreme Court by a federal court hearing a suit brought by Harley Kelchner, a Florida truck driver against Indiana-based CRST Specialized Transportation Inc. alleging violations of Iowa’s Business Opportunity Promotions Act. The answer is “No,” the Iowa Supreme Court said in a Dec. 19 decision written by Justice David May joined by all members of the Court.

CRST Specialized is an Indiana-incorporated motor carrier with its principal place of business in Indiana; Kelchner, a Florida resident who contracted with CRST Specialized as an independent contractor in Fort Wayne, Indiana, sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

The federal court denied CRST Specialized’s motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but at CRST Specialized’s request the judge certified this question to the Iowa Supreme Court: “Under Iowa law, does a foreign corporation consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Iowa courts by registering to do business in Iowa and appointing an agent for service of process in Iowa when a plaintiff then serves the foreign corporation’s designated agent?”

The answer, the Iowa Supreme Court said, is CRST Specialized did not consent to the jurisdiction of Iowa courts.

“Under Iowa law, a foreign corporation does not consent to personal jurisdiction by registering to do business in Iowa, appointing an agent for service of process in Iowa, or receiving service through that agent,” the Court said.

Justice May explained there are two parts to the question of whether a court has jurisdiction to decide a case: subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the power to decide a claim before the court, and personal jurisdiction, which is the power over the parties before the court. A court must have both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, but the question in this case involves personal jurisdiction.

Because the Court was not asked to decide whether Iowa could constitutionally require foreign corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction in Iowa, the question is whether Iowa law – in this case Iowa Code Chapter 409, the Iowa Business Corporation Act  – imposes that requirement.

Iowa Code Section 409.1502(1) requires that a foreign corporation must register with the Secretary of State to do business in Iowa and must include the street and mailing address of the foreign corporation’s registered agent “for service of process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served on the corporation.”

Compliance with the registration requirement does not, however, mean that a corporation consents to personal jurisdiction in Iowa for any and all suits, the Court said, because the relevant portions of Chapter 490 do not mention “consent,” “jurisdiction,” or “personal jurisdiction.”

Those terms and their synonyms appear in many other provisions of the Iowa Code, the Court said, and “if the legislature had chosen to require consent to personal jurisdiction from every foreign corporation that registers and appoints an agent in Iowa, the legislature could have said so in the same express terms. But it did not.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2025-26