## Facts

- Bendix Autolite Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, contracted in 1974 with Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., an Illinois corporation based in Illinois, for delivery and installation of a boiler system at Bendix’s Ohio facility.
- In 1980, Bendix filed a diversity action in federal court in Ohio alleging breach of contract related to the boiler project.
- Midwesco asserted Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations as a defense.
- Bendix relied on an Ohio tolling statute that suspended limitations periods against foreign corporations not “present” in Ohio and not appointing an in-state agent for service of process, resulting in potentially indefinite tolling.
- Ohio also had a long-arm statute that allowed service on Midwesco throughout the normal limitations period; the parties conceded service was available under that statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio’s tolling statute, which indefinitely suspends limitations against out-of-state corporations lacking an in-state agent for service, violates the Commerce Clause by imposing an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit and held the Ohio tolling statute unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
- The statute effectively forced an out-of-state corporation to choose between appointing an Ohio agent (thereby submitting to Ohio’s general jurisdiction) and forfeiting the statute of limitations defense.
- Because Ohio’s long-arm statute already permitted service during the limitations period, the tolling statute’s added burden was not justified by Ohio’s asserted interests.
- Conditioning access to a limitations defense on submission to general jurisdiction imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce.

## Legal Principles

- A state may not impose a burden on interstate commerce by conditioning an out-of-state corporation’s access to ordinary legal protections on acceptance of broad in-state jurisdiction.
- Statutes of limitations, though not fundamental rights, are a relied-upon component of commercial planning and may not be withdrawn from out-of-state entities on Commerce Clause–invalid conditions.
- When a state can accomplish service of process through less burdensome means (such as long-arm service), an additional scheme that creates perpetual exposure to suit for unregistered foreign corporations is constitutionally suspect under the dormant Commerce Clause.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Ohio’s indefinite tolling rule because it coerced foreign corporations to submit to general jurisdiction to preserve a limitations defense, despite the state’s ability to serve them through long-arm procedures, thereby placing an undue burden on interstate commerce.


Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enters., Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (1988)