Lima Delta Co. v. Global Aerospace, Inc.
325 Ga. App. 76
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Global sued to rescind the Policy and for a ruling no coverage exists, based on alleged material misrepresentations in the insurance application.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion and certified for interlocutory appeal.
- Georgia long-arm jurisdiction is analyzed under OCGA § 9-10-91(1) (transacting business) with due-process requirements.
- The insureds’ agent, Wells Fargo, coordinated negotiation, placement, and delivery of the Policy from Atlanta, Georgia.
- Policy was applied for, negotiated, paid, issued, and delivered through Georgia connections, making the contract made in Georgia under lex loci contractus.
- Georgia has a substantial interest in adjudicating disputes governed by Georgia law, with most witnesses and documents located in Georgia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia has personal jurisdiction over the insureds. | Global asserts insureds transacted business in Georgia via Wells Fargo and Piraino. | Insureds argue no transaction occurred in Georgia; negotiations done remotely. | Yes; insureds transacted business in Georgia through Wells Fargo; jurisdiction affirmed. |
| Whether the suit arises from the insureds' Georgia business transaction. | Rescission/declaration relates to the Georgia transaction. | Argues lack of connection to Georgia transaction. | Yes; the action arises from the Georgia transaction. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. | Georgia has an interest in applying its contract law; witnesses and documents are in Georgia. | Burden on nonresidents, travel to Georgia; possible Delaware forum. | Reasonableness satisfied; Georgia’s interests support jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Innovative Clinical & Consulting Svcs. v. First Nat. Bank of Ames, 279 Ga. 672 (2005) (limits on physical presence not required for jurisdiction; contacts via postal/telephonic/Internet sufficient)
- ATCO Sign & Lighting Co., LLC v. Stamm Mfg., 298 Ga. App. 528 (2009) (minimum contacts; reasonableness analysis governs jurisdiction)
- Aero Toy Store, LLC v. Grieves, 279 Ga. App. 515 (2006) (three-part test for transacting business in Georgia; minimum contacts then reasonableness)
- Hyperdynamics Corp. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt., 305 Ga. App. 283 (2010) (non-hearing motion on jurisdiction; court assesses disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor)
- Sol Melia v. Brown, 301 Ga. App. 760 (2009) (due process considerations in long-arm jurisdiction)