In the case of Rush et al. v. Savchuk, 1979, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurance company based solely on the fact that it insured an in-state policyholder involved in a lawsuit within that state's courts. The case arose when Indiana resident Savchuk sued fellow Indiana resident Rush for injuries sustained during a car accident while both were living in Minnesota. After moving to Indiana, Savchuk initiated his suit there and sought to include Rush's insurer (also from outside of Indiana) as part of the proceedings under "implied consent" laws which stated insurers agreed to be subject to jurisdiction wherever their insured might be sued. However, this was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it violated due process rights protected by Fourteenth Amendment; specifically, minimum contacts between defendant and forum state must exist before personal jurisdiction can be exercised.

In the dissenting opinion for Rush et al. v. Savchuk, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of due process and jurisdictional law. He contended that an insurance company doing business in a state should be subject to its courts' jurisdiction, even if the policyholder resides elsewhere or causes injury outside of it. The fact that State Farm had issued policies and collected premiums in Indiana made it reasonable for them to anticipate being haled into court there on matters related to those policies, according to him. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view about "fair play" and "substantial justice," arguing instead that these concepts were not violated by allowing Savchuk’s suit in Indiana because State Farm had sufficient contacts with this state through its extensive activities there.