ASTRO ALUMINUM TREATING CO., INC. v. INTER CONTAL, INC.
296 So.3d 462
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Inter Contal (Florida) sent specially fabricated metal alloys to Astro Aluminum Treating Co. (California) for heat treatment under an order/invoice that listed Inter Contal as the "ship to" and required Inter Contal to provide packing and prepaid return shipping.
- Astro treated and tested the alloys at its California facility and handed the finished product to the carrier in California for return shipment; Inter Contal later discovered the alloys did not meet specifications after delivery abroad.
- Inter Contal sued in Florida for breach of contract and FDUTPA, alleging Astro breached a contract that contemplated delivery back to Inter Contal in Florida and thus subjected Astro to Florida long-arm jurisdiction under § 48.193(1)(a)(7) and alternatively § 48.193(1)(a)(6).
- Astro moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits showing all of its operations and performance occurred in California, customers prepaid shipping, and Astro’s obligations ended when it delivered goods to the carrier in California.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding sufficient minimum contacts and that the contract required performance in Florida; Astro appealed the nonfinal order.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding the contract did not require performance in Florida (so § 48.193(1)(a)(7) did not apply) and the § 48.193(1)(a)(6) allegations were insufficient (monetary injury outside Florida), so long-arm jurisdiction was lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 48.193(1)(a)(7) authorizes jurisdiction because the contract required performance in Florida | Contract "contemplated and required" Astro to ship treated materials back to Inter Contal in Florida, so Astro should expect to litigate in Florida | Contract merely directed shipment to Inter Contal; Astro performed in California and delivered to carrier there; no contractual duty to perform in Florida | Reversed: contract did not require performance in Florida; (a)(7) inapplicable |
| Whether § 48.193(1)(a)(6) applies because injury to property occurred in Florida from a product or material | Defective treatment caused injury tied to Inter Contal (a Florida plaintiff) and shipment to Florida supports jurisdiction | Defective goods were used/identified and injury discovered abroad; alleged harm is purely monetary and not an in-state physical injury | Reversed: allegations insufficient—monetary loss alone does not support (a)(6) jurisdiction |
| Whether general jurisdiction under § 48.193(2) exists | Inter Contal suggested Astro’s contacts (negotiations, shipment to Florida, payments) support general jurisdiction | Complaint pleaded only the single transaction; Astro lacks systematic and continuous contacts with Florida | Not pled or proven; general jurisdiction not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-step long-arm analysis: statutory reach then due-process minimum contacts)
- Pestana v. Karinol Corp., 367 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) ("send to/ship to" term alone does not make a contract a destination contract)
- Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 511 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1987) (financial loss alone insufficient for long-arm jurisdiction under certain provisions)
- Control Laser Corp. v. Rocky Mountain Instrument Co., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (case relied on by trial court concerning delivery obligations and jurisdiction)
- Cornerstone Inv. Funding, LLC v. Painted Post Grp., Inc., 188 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (mere breach of contract causing nonpayment in Florida does not alone satisfy due-process minimum contacts)