THE SENG COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDMUND BURKE ET UX., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed an order denying a motion to dismiss a third-party complaint for indemnity. The appellate court found that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendant, The Seng Company, because it did not have sufficient "connexity" with Florida.
No, the trial court does not have personal jurisdiction over The Seng Company. The "connexity" requirement for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant was not met under the given facts.
[1] A foreign corporation's mere shipment of component parts to another state, which are then incorporated into a final product manufactured and sold by a third party in the…
[2] Service of process on a foreign corporation by serving the Secretary of State is permissible under Florida Statutes, provided that sufficient minimum contacts with the st…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Clearly under these facts the connexity requirement to confer personal jurisdiction over The Seng Company has not been met.”
Establishes the court's finding that personal jurisdiction was lacking.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdmund Burke was injured by a chair manufactured by Inter Royal Corporation. Inter Royal filed a third-party complaint against The Seng Company, alleg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Seng Company and its liability insurer, third-party defendants, appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss the third party complaint for indemnity for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Edmund Burke was injured when he fell backwards out of an office chair which was manufactured by defendant Inter Royal Corporation. He filed a suit for damages against Inter Royal and alleged in his complaint that the tilt control mechanism was faulty causing him to fall to the floor when the chair tilted backwards. Thereafter Inter Royal filed a third party complaint against The Seng Company and its insurer, Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, for indemnity and alleged in the complaint that Seng was the manufacturer of the tilt control mechanism. Service of process was effected on The Seng Company, a foreign corporation, by serving the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 48.161-48.19, Florida Statutes (1977).
The Seng Company and Michigan Mutual filed motions to dismiss the third party complaint for, inter alia, a failure to allege sufficient facts to support personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1977).
The motions were denied and this appeal followed.
We reverse.
The Seng Company is an Illinois Corporation which does not have a corporate agent in the State of Florida. The tilt control mechanisms were manufactured in Chicago, Illinois and shipped to Inter Royal in Michigan City, Indiana. Inter Royal manufactured the chairs which were shipped directly from its factory to the purchaser here in Dade County. The Seng Company does not sell the chairs manufactured by Inter Royal. Clearly under these facts the connexity requirement to confer personal jurisdiction over The Seng Company has not been met. See John Blue Company v. Roper Pump Company, 324 So. 2d 147 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Hyco Mfg. Co. v. Rotex Intern. Corp., 355 So. 2d 471 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Accordingly, the orders denying the motions to dismiss are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the third party complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Local Data Co. & Robert Lee v. Innovative Elec. Sys., Inc., 378 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ntiff’s complaint clearly shows that there are insufficient allegations to justify the employment of the method of service prescribed by our long-arm statutes. See, Electro Engineering Products v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1977); Seng Co. v. Burke, 366 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); P. S. R. Associates v. Artcraft-Heath, 364 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Esberger v. First Florida Business Consultants, Inc., 338 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976.) Accordingly, we affirm the trial court order which in effect foun…
Authorities Cited
- Hyco Mfg. Co. v. Rotex Int'l Corp., 355 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- The John Blue Co. v. Roper Pump Co., 324 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)