Aviation One of Florida, Inc. v. Airborne Insurance Consultants (PTY), LTD
16-16187
| 11th Cir. | Jan 11, 2018Background
- Aviation One (Florida) leased a Beech 1900C to S.A. Guinee (Guinea operations). Lease required S.A. Guinee to procure specified insurance naming Aviation One as insured.
- S.A. Guinee engaged Airborne (South Africa) to obtain coverage; Airborne procured a South African policy from Guardrisk that limited geographic scope to Africa. Renewal omitted a requested breach-of-warranty endorsement.
- The aircraft crashed in Guinea (2009). Guardrisk denied the claim (pilot not listed, among other reasons). Airborne represented Aviation One in coverage communications and referred Aviation One to Clyde (UK counsel).
- Aviation One paid Clyde nearly $300,000 in South African/UK litigation costs, abandoned the insurer suit, and sued Airborne and Clyde in federal court in Florida for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence.
- The district court dismissed Airborne for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Clyde under forum non conveniens based on a forum-selection clause in the Clyde retainer; Aviation One appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Airborne (specific jurisdiction) | Airborne procured insurance naming a Florida owner and its negligent omission caused harm in Florida (citing Ruiz de Molina); jurisdiction proper | Airborne lacked purposeful contacts with Florida — policy covered risks in Africa; contacts were with S.A. Guinee and South African insurer | Held: No personal jurisdiction. Airborne’s forum contacts were too attenuated; tort arose outside Florida and effects test inapplicable. |
| Jurisdictional discovery re: Airborne | Aviation One sought discovery to develop jurisdictional facts | Airborne and court: plaintiff did not diligently seek discovery while motion pending; plaintiff never specified what discovery was needed | Held: Court did not abuse discretion by denying discovery as Aviation One failed to timely or specifically seek it. |
| Enforcement of Clyde’s forum-selection clause / forum non conveniens | Clause unenforceable/unreasonable; litigation in England would be gravely inconvenient and Clyde had conflict issues | Clyde: valid, communicated Terms of Business with exclusive English jurisdiction; dismissal through forum non conveniens warranted | Held: Clause valid and enforceable; forum non conveniens dismissal affirmed (modified to include Clyde’s stipulation to accept service and toll limitations in England). |
| Procedural due process / sequencing (forum non conveniens, discovery, reply) | Court erred by dismissing on forum non conveniens not expressly argued and by denying discovery/reply | Clyde argued dismissal based on clause; court afforded opportunity to respond; discovery unnecessary for clause enforcement | Held: No procedural error. Plaintiff had notice and chance to respond; discovery not required for forum-selection enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz de Molina v. Merritt & Furman Ins. Agency, Inc., 207 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2000) (insurance broker’s procurement of coverage for property in forum can support jurisdiction where risk and performance centered in forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for intentional torts aimed at forum)
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (forum-selection clauses enforced via forum non conveniens; clause carries near-determinative weight)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (minimum-contacts analysis focuses on defendant’s contacts with forum, not plaintiff’s connections)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (framework for relatedness and purposeful availment in specific jurisdiction analysis)