Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 53
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322 (2026)

 Bases of personal jurisdiction over persons outside this Commonwealth.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5322.  Bases of personal jurisdiction over persons outside this Commonwealth.

(a)  General rule.--A tribunal of this Commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person (or the personal representative of a deceased individual who would be subject to jurisdiction under this subsection if not deceased) who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person:

(1)  Transacting any business in this Commonwealth. Without excluding other acts which may constitute transacting business in this Commonwealth, any of the following shall constitute transacting business for the purpose of this paragraph:

(i)  The doing by any person in this Commonwealth of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object.

(ii)  The doing of a single act in this Commonwealth for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object with the intention of initiating a series of such acts.

(iii)  The shipping of merchandise directly or indirectly into or through this Commonwealth.

(iv)  The engaging in any business or profession within this Commonwealth, whether or not such business requires license or approval by any government unit of this Commonwealth.

(v)  The ownership, use or possession of any real property situate within this Commonwealth.

(2)  Contracting to supply services or things in this Commonwealth.

(3)  Causing harm or tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth.

(4)  Causing harm or tortious injury in this Commonwealth by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth.

(5)  Having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this Commonwealth.

(6)  (i)  Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this Commonwealth at the time of contracting.

(ii)  Being a person who controls, or who is a director, officer, employee or agent of a person who controls, an insurance company incorporated in this Commonwealth or an alien insurer domiciled in this Commonwealth.

(iii)  Engaging in conduct described in section 504 of the act of May 17, 1921 (P.L.789, No.285), known as The Insurance Department Act of 1921.

(7)  Accepting election or appointment or exercising powers under the authority of this Commonwealth as a:

(i)  Personal representative of a decedent.

(ii)  Guardian of a minor or incapacitated person.

(iii)  Trustee or other fiduciary.

(iv)  Director or officer of a corporation.

(8)  Executing any bond of any of the persons specified in paragraph (7).

(9)  Making application to any government unit for any certificate, license, permit, registration or similar instrument or authorization or exercising any such instrument or authorization.

(10)  Committing any violation within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth of any statute, home rule charter, local ordinance or resolution, or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder by any government unit or of any order of court or other government unit.

(b)  Exercise of full constitutional power over nonresidents.--In addition to the provisions of subsection (a) the jurisdiction of the tribunals of this Commonwealth shall extend to all persons who are not within the scope of section 5301 (relating to persons) to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States and may be based on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.

(c)  Scope of jurisdiction.--When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action or other matter arising from acts enumerated in subsection (a), or from acts forming the basis of jurisdiction under subsection (b), may be asserted against him.

(d)  Service outside this Commonwealth.--When the exercise of personal jurisdiction is authorized by this section, service of process may be made outside this Commonwealth.

(e)  Inconvenient forum.--When a tribunal finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum, the tribunal may stay or dismiss the matter in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days; Apr. 16, 1992, P.L.108, No.24, eff. 60 days)

 

1992 Amendment.  Act 24 amended subsec. (a).

Cross References.  Section 5322 is referred to in sections 5323, 5329, 62A05 of this title; section 2576 of Title 15 (Corporations and Unincorporated Associations); section 6103 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 421 cases (114 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Gaboury v. Gaboury, 988 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gaboury v. Gaboury, 988 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5322. 3 ¶ 10 While personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants may be conferred by 42 Pa.”
Failor, R. v. Fedex Ground Package, 248 A.3d 527 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 7× “1 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322 (e) provides “When a tribunal finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum, the tribunal may stay or dismiss the matter in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”
Bochetto v. Piper Aircraft Co., 94 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 6× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5322. Our Supreme Court has adopted the Comment to Section 117(e) of the Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, in enunciating what the trial court is to consider in deciding whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires dismissal: “The two most important…”
Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 5× “In response, the Company filed a petition to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e). 1 *512 Ms. Alford answered the petition, and the trial court decided the issue on petition and answer alone.”
Danziger & De Llano LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124 (3rd Cir. 2020). “Pennsylvania courts lack specific jurisdiction Danziger argues that Morgan Verkamp’s contacts with Pennsylvania support specific jurisdiction there.”
Fuentes Merino, D. v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). · cites it 10× “Whether a trial court in Pennsylvania may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is guided by both our long-arm statute, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”
Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1992). · cites it 4× “The question presented is one of first impression: whether Section 5322(a)(3) of the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, confers personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a dispute arising out of an isolated sale of a private residence, and if so,…”
Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “That same day, Ortho-Clinical filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which had been filed sixteen months earlier, on the basis of forum non conveniens pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e), contending that Texas was the more convenient forum for resolution of…”
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Tim Walker, Docket No. 04-3924-Cv, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007). “2005) (interpreting Ohio law); 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322; R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-5-33; Tex.”
Jackie L. Sullivan v. A. W. Chesterton, Inc. (In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI)), 384 F. Supp. 3d 532 (E.D. Pa. 2019). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S § 5322(a). In addition to these specific instances, the statute also provides that "the jurisdiction of the tribunals of this Commonwealth shall extend .”
Christa Fischer v. Fed. Express Corp, 42 F.4th 366 (3rd Cir. 2022). “” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b); see Remick v.”
Ent. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp. Practices Lit., 735 F. Supp. 2d 277 (W.D. Pa. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5322(b). The statute is coextensive with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Show all 421 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(5) — 1 case
Noone, T. v. Hub Grp. Trucking (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(A)(4) — 1 case
Cali v. East Coast Aviation Servs.., Ltd., 178 F. Supp. 2d 276 (E.D.N.Y 2001).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a) — 32 cases
Jackie L. Sullivan v. A. W. Chesterton, Inc. (In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI)), 384 F. Supp. 3d 532 (E.D. Pa. 2019). “42 Pa.C.S § 5322(a). In addition to these specific instances, the statute also provides that "the jurisdiction of the tribunals of this Commonwealth shall extend .”
Gaboury v. Gaboury, 988 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5322. 3 ¶ 10 While personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants may be conferred by 42 Pa.”
Fulano, J. v. Fanjul Corp., 236 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
Fuentes Merino, D. v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “Whether a trial court in Pennsylvania may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is guided by both our long-arm statute, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”
Massachusetts Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 846 F. Supp. 374 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(1) — 16 cases
Cash Am. Net of Nevada, LLC v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
SKF USA Inc. v. Okkerse, 992 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
Arch v. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc., 984 F. Supp. 830 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
TJS Brokerage & Co., Inc. v. Mahoney, 940 F. Supp. 784 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
DiMark Mktg., Inc. v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 913 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(1)(h) — 1 case
Cottrell v. Zisa, 535 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(1)(i) — 2 cases
SKF USA Inc. v. Okkerse, 992 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
Fuentes Merino, D. v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “Whether a trial court in Pennsylvania may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is guided by both our long-arm statute, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(1)(ii) — 1 case
Fuentes Merino, D. v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “Whether a trial court in Pennsylvania may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is guided by both our long-arm statute, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(1)(iii) — 3 cases
Paciulli v. India Garments, Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2025).
Paciulli v. India Garments, Inc. (D.N.J. 2025).
Kronenburg v. Van De Plas, 56 Pa. D. & C.4th 468 (2002).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(1994) — 1 case
Elbeco Inc. v. Estrella De Plato, Corp., 989 F. Supp. 669 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(3) — 14 cases
Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1992). “The question presented is one of first impression: whether Section 5322(a)(3) of the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, confers personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a dispute arising out of an isolated sale of a private residence, and if so,…”
Leonard A. Feinberg, Inc. v. Cent. Asia Capital Corp., 936 F. Supp. 250 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
N.T. ex rel. K.R.T. v. F.F., 118 A.3d 1130 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
ALTECH Indus., Inc. v. AL TECH Specialty Steel Corp., 542 F. Supp. 53 (D. Del. 1982).
TJS Brokerage & Co., Inc. v. Mahoney, 940 F. Supp. 784 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(4) — 22 cases
Rosemarie T. Schwilm, Adm'x of the Est. of Carrol A. Schwilm, Deceased v. Thomas J. Holbrook, M.D. & Cabell Huntington Hosp., 661 F.2d 12 (3rd Cir. 1981).
State Farm Mut., Auto. Ins. v. Tz'Doko V'Chesed, 543 F. Supp. 2d 424 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
Mann v. Tom James Co., 802 F. Supp. 1293 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Simkins Corp. v. Gourmet Resources Int'l, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 1336 (E.D. Pa. 1985).
Harris v. Trans Union, LLC, 197 F. Supp. 2d 200 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(4)(5) — 1 case
Abady v. Macaluso, 90 F.R.D. 690 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(5) — 1 case
Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1992). “The question presented is one of first impression: whether Section 5322(a)(3) of the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, confers personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a dispute arising out of an isolated sale of a private residence, and if so,…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(6)(i) — 1 case
Flabeg Solar US Corp. v. ERGO Versicherung AG (In re Flabeg Solar US Corp.), 566 B.R. 144 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2017).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(7) — 1 case
Tsucalas v. Holy Xenophone Monastery, 939 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(l) — 5 cases
Robbins v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 496 A.2d 1349 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985).
Brooks v. Bacardi Rum Corp., 943 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
Kronenburg v. Van De Plas, 56 Pa. D. & C.4th 468 (2002).
Alan Hostetler Ins. Agents & Brokers Inc. v. KRS Restaurant Corp., 32 Pa. D. & C.4th 532 (1996).
Ruby v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 50 Pa. D. & C.4th 80 (2000).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(l)(i) — 4 cases
Arrington v. Colortyme, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 733 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. v. Geko-Mayo, GmbH, 56 F. Supp. 2d 559 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
Kronenburg v. Van De Plas, 56 Pa. D. & C.4th 468 (2002).
Alan Hostetler Ins. Agents & Brokers Inc. v. KRS Restaurant Corp., 32 Pa. D. & C.4th 532 (1996).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(l)(ii) — 1 case
Arnold v. Lachman, 9 Pa. D. & C.4th 140 (1991).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(l)(iii) — 2 cases
Galaxy Int'l, Inc. v. White Stores, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 311 (W.D. Pa. 1980).
Snyder Int'l, Inc. v. Tap Equip. Co., 770 F. Supp. 279 (W.D. Pa. 1991).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(b) — 206 cases
Christa Fischer v. Fed. Express Corp, 42 F.4th 366 (3rd Cir. 2022). “” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b); see Remick v.”
Ent. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp. Practices Lit., 735 F. Supp. 2d 277 (W.D. Pa. 2010). “” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5322(b). The statute is coextensive with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Britax Child Saf., Inc. v. Nuna Int'l B.V., 321 F. Supp. 3d 546 (E.D. Pa. 2018).
TruePosition, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Tel. Co., 844 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Nealey, 262 F. Supp. 3d 153 (E.D. Pa. 2017).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(c) — 12 cases
Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 206 A.3d 495 (Pa. 2019).
Rogers v. Icelandair/Flugleider, Int'l, 522 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
Rivello v. New Jersey Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 638 A.2d 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994).
Holland v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
Cottrell v. Zisa, 535 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(e) — 57 cases
Failor, R. v. Fedex Ground Package, 248 A.3d 527 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “1 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322 (e) provides “When a tribunal finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum, the tribunal may stay or dismiss the matter in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”
Bochetto v. Piper Aircraft Co., 94 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5322. Our Supreme Court has adopted the Comment to Section 117(e) of the Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, in enunciating what the trial court is to consider in deciding whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires dismissal: “The two most important…”
Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa. 1987). “In response, the Company filed a petition to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e). 1 *512 Ms. Alford answered the petition, and the trial court decided the issue on petition and answer alone.”
Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “That same day, Ortho-Clinical filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which had been filed sixteen months earlier, on the basis of forum non conveniens pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e), contending that Texas was the more convenient forum for resolution of…”
Hunter v. Shire Us, Inc., 992 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.