THE JOHN BLUE COMPANY, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROPER PUMP COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
John Blue Company, a third-party defendant in an Alabama corporation, appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in a products liability case. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida courts lack personal jurisdiction over John Blue because the third-party indemnity claim failed to satisfy the 'connexity' requirement of Florida's long-arm statute.
Florida courts lack personal jurisdiction over John Blue Company because the third-party indemnity claim does not arise out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to John Blue's activities in Florida, thus failing the 'connexity' requirement of § 48.182.
[1] Service of process under Florida Statute § 48.182 requires that the cause of action arise out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the foreign co…
[2] A foreign corporation's activities must have a sufficient connection to Florida for Florida courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over it.
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“the resolution of the dispute over the validity of the service of process under § 48.182, Fla.Stat. depends on whether the requirements of (1) connexity, i. e. the cause of action arose out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the activities of the foreign corporation in Florida, (2) commission of a wrongful act by the foreign corporation, and (3) the derivation of substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce have been met.”
Establishes the three-part test for jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePanelfab International Corporation purchased a glue pump from Jesse W. Eakins Company (a foreign corporation), which had obtained it from Roper Pump C…
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 Service Of Process On Non-Residents cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, John Blue Company, third party defendant in the trial court, takes this interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, Panelfab International Corporation purchased from Jesse W. Eakins Company, a foreign corporation, a glue pump manufactured by Roper Pump Company, also a foreign corporation. Due to an alleged defect in its make-up, the pump exploded causing several thousand gallons of glue to spill onto the plaintiff’s premises. Plaintiff sued the Eakins Company and Roper Pump Company for damages. Thereupon, Roper filed a third party complaint for indemnification against appellant which manufactured the casing, a component part of the pump which exploded. Process was served on appellant, an Alabama corporation, pursuant to § 48.182, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 Appellant filed consolidated motions to quash service of process and to dismiss the third party complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the appellant. These motions were denied and this interlocutory appeal followed.
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in determining that service under § 48.182 is applicable to it. We agree.
As the court held in Youngblood v. Citrus Assoc. of N.
Y. Cotton Exch., Fla.App. 1973, 276 So. 2d 505, the resolution of the dispute over the validity of the service of process under § 48.182, Fla.Stat. depends on'1 whether the requirements of (1) connexity, i. e. the cause of action arose out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the activities of the foreign corporation in Florida, (2) commission of a wrongful act by the foreign corporation, and (3) the derivation of substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce have been met. See also. Bayitch, Conflict of Laws: Florida 1970-1971, 26 U.Miami L.Rev. 1, 25 (1971). We concern ourselves only with the requirement of connexity which is dispositive of the case before us.
The record reflects that the third party plaintiff, John Roper Company, is a Georgia corporation and John Roper purchased the pump casing from the appellant third party defendant John Blue Corporation, which manufactured the casing in Alabama. After the pump was assembled in Georgia by Roper, it was shipped to the Jesse W. Eakins Company in Michigan, which in turn sold it to the plaintiff Panelfab International Corporation in Florida.
Thus, we conclude that Roper’s crossclaim for indemnity does not arise out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the activities of the appellant John Blue Company in Florida.
Accordingly, the requirement of connexity not having been met, the courts of Florida do not have in personam jurisdiction over the appellant.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to enter an order quashing service of process and dismissing Roper Pump Company’s third party indemnity complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
So ordered.
. “48.182 Service on nonresidents committing a wrongful act outside the state which causes injury within the state. — Any nonresident person, firm, or corporation who in person or through an agent commits a wrongful act outside the state which causes injury, loss, or damage to persons or property within this state may be personally served in any action or proceeding against the nonresident arising from any such act in the same manner as a nonresident who in person or through an agent has committed a wrongful act within the state. If a nonresident expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in this state or any other state or nation and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, he may be served; provided, that if such nonresident is deceased, his executor or administrator shall be subject to personal service in the same manner as a nonresident. This section shall not apply to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druck-Gusswaremfabrik, 442 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…resulted in the injury. . "Connexity” refers to the requirement that the cause of action arise out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the activities of the foreign 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 f…
-
Shoei Safety Helmet Corp. & Shoei Kako Co., Ltd. v. Conlee, 409 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…rought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue. Id. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at 160. . E.g., Youngblood v. Citrus Assoc. of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., 276 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); John Blue Co. v. Roper Pump Co., 324 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). . We recognize that by so holding we are in irreconcilable conflict with the decision in General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also American Baseball Cap, Inc. v.…
-
The Seng Co. v. Edmund Burke et ux., 366 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…e 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 compl…
Authorities Cited
- Youngblood v. Citrus Assocs. OF the NEW York Cotton Exch., Inc., 276 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)