GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HICKORY SPRINGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION AND TEXTRON, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, D/B/A BURKHART, 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.
General Tire appeals the dismissal of Hickory Springs Manufacturing for lack of in personam jurisdiction in consolidated personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from a jail fire. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that appellants failed to establish a connection between the defendant's Florida business activities and the cause of action required under Florida's long-arm statutes.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that appellants failed to demonstrate a connection between Hickory Springs' business activities in Florida and the cause of action arising from the jail fire, which is a prerequisite to establishing jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statutes.
[1] A foreign corporation's business activities within a state must be connected to the cause of action for the state's courts to acquire in personam jurisdiction over the co…
[2] Florida's long-arm statutes require that a cause of action arise from the enumerated acts or business activities of a foreign corporation before jurisdiction can be asser…
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“Therefore, it is necessary to show first that the cause of action arose from an obligation or cause connected with the activities of the foreign corporation before reaching the question as to whether the corporation was doing business within the state.”
Establishes the threshold requirement that plaintiff must demonstrate nexus between defendant's in-state activities and the cause of action before jurisdiction can be found.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA fire started by an inmate in jail mattresses containing polyurethane foam manufactured by Hickory Springs resulted in thirty personal injury and wro…
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 Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, from an order dismissing appellee, Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, who was the defendant below, for lack of in personam jurisdiction. Thirty personal injury or wrongful death actions which arose from a fire in the Seminole County jail were filed in the Circuit Court for Seminole County naming appellee as defendant. All those cases have been consolidated for this appeal.
The point on appeal is whether the lower court erred in dismissing appellee as a party defendant for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
We affirm.
The fire was started by an inmate in mattresses which contained a polyurethane foam manufactured by appellee. Appellants contend the foam is unsuitable for use in the manufacture of mattresses destined for use in jails. This material was sold by appellee to Alagold Products in Alabama, which manufactured mattresses. These mattresses were then sold to Supreme Sales Company, Inc. in Georgia which in turn sold the mattresses to Seminole County for use in its jail. It was not demonstrated that appellee had any notice or knowledge that the foam it sold in Alabama would be used in mattresses destined for a jail in Florida or elsewhere. It was shown, however, that appellee had made sales of polyurethane foam in Florida to other consumers but none was in anyway connected with this occurrence. Nor was it shown that appellee recommended this product for use in jails.
Appellee, a foreign corporation, had not qualified to do business within the state.1 Therefore, appellants were required to bring appellee within one of the two Florida “long-arm” statutes, sections 48.181 and 48.193, Florida Statutes (1979).
Section 48.181 basically provides for the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which is “doing business” within the state. Section 48.193 sets out specific acts, including that of conducting a business, which may subject a foreign corporation to in personam jurisdiction. Section 48.193 specifically limits jurisdiction to causes of action arising from the enumerated acts. Although section 48.181 does not expressly impose the same limitation, Florida district courts have interpreted the statute as including the requirement that the cause of action be related to the business activities of the foreign corporation. Bradford White Corp. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 372 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hartman Agency, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mut., 353 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Crown Colony Club, Limited v. Honecker, 307 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Manus v. Manus, 193 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). See also Phillips v. Hooker Chemical Corp., 375 F. 2d 189 (5th Cir. 1967).
Therefore, it is necessary to show first that the cause of action arose from an obligation or cause connected with the activities of the foreign corporation before reaching the question as to whether the corporation was doing business within the state. In Manus v. Manus, 193 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), the court stated:
[Sjince the alleged cause of action against this foreign corporation is not shown to have arisen out of an obligation or cause connected with the activities of this foreign corporation in this state, we cannot reach the question of whether or not this foreign corporation was doing business in this state.
See also American Baseball Cap Inc. v. Duzinski, 359 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 443 (Fla.1979).
Appellants failed to show any connection between appellee’s business activities in Florida and the cause of action and therefore the court was correct in dismissing Hickory Springs as a party defendant.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . § 607.304, Fla.Stat. (1979). See also § 48.-091, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Motors Corp. & Jeep Corp. v. Abrahantes, 474 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…uckgusswaremfabrik, 442 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (rehearing granted in part and denied in part); Firestone Steel Products Co. of Canada v. Snell, 423 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bradford White Corp. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 372 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). No such “connexity” exists in the present case. With respect to a defendant “engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the state,” th…1 / 2
-
Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druck-Gusswaremfabrik, 442 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…corporation in Florida. John Blue Co. v. Roper Pump Co., 324 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). . The court in Shoei recognized that its holding was in direct conflict with the decision in General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). According to the Shoei court, the fifth district in General Tire incorrectly concluded that a foreign manufacturer which promotes and sells its products in Florida is immune from jurisdiction where the particular allegedly defec…
-
Shoei Safety Helmet Corp. & Shoei Kako Co., Ltd. v. Conlee, 409 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…t of Florida pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi) that the decision herein is in direct conflict with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). LETTS, C. J., GLICKSTEIN, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Phillips v. Hooker Chem. Corp., 375 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Hartman Agency, Inc. v. Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 353 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Horne v. State, 372 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Crown Colony Club v. Christi M. Honecker, 307 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Adele Manus v. Manus, 193 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- State v. Appelbaum, 366 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1979)
- Am. Baseball CAP, Inc. v. Duzinski, 359 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Rickli, 359 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)