August 7, 2018
MKC’s Florida office was recently successful in obtaining a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case, Southern Wall Products, Inc. v. Steven E. Bolin and Deborah Bolin, resulting in the dismissal of its client, Southern Wall Products, Inc., due to the lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, a citizen of Texas, alleged he was exposed to asbestos from a Southern Wall product while working for a construction company in Clearwater, Florida, from 1975 through 1977. In the trial court proceedings, Southern Wall challenged personal jurisdiction in Florida on the grounds that Southern Wall did not market or sell its products in Florida during the 1970s.
The Appellate Court agreed with Southern Wall’s position, finding Plaintiffs failed to establish Southern Wall had sufficient “minimum contacts” with Florida to justify subjecting it to personal jurisdiction in Florida. In its reasoning, the Appellate Court stated that merely alleging the use of an allegedly defective product in Florida, without more, is insufficient to establish “minimum contacts.” According to the Appellate Court, the dispositive inquiry for the “minimum contacts” analysis is not whether the allegedly-defective product was used in Florida, but instead, how the allegedly-defective product made its way into Florida, i.e., the nature of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Plaintiffs must show that the allegedly-defective product made its way into Florida as a result of Southern Wall’s purposeful, direct contacts with Florida. Plaintiffs failed to show Southern Wall had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Florida or targeted its business activities at Florida during the alleged exposure period, as required for specific personal jurisdiction.
The Appellate Court also held the “minimum contacts” analysis must be made at the time of the alleged injury. Plaintiffs alleged the exposure occurred in the 1970s, therefore Plaintiffs could not rely on the contacts Southern Wall had with Florida in 2016 or 2017.
The decision is a welcome and significant contribution to the law of personal jurisdiction, clarifying an area in the law previously left unresolved in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. Under the “minimum contacts” analysis, specific jurisdiction requires the alleged injury “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., supra. Until this decision, it was unclear how the “arise out of or relate to” standard for specific personal jurisdiction should properly be applied in product liability lawsuits brought against non-resident defendants in Florida. The decision confirms there is a time period limitation for specific personal jurisdiction in the “minimum contacts” analysis. Specifically, the only contacts which satisfy the “minimum contacts” test are those occurring at the time of the alleged injury.