National Union Fire Insurance v. American Eurocopter Corp.
692 F.3d 405
5th Cir.2012Background
- National Union sued AEC in Hawaii for contribution to its settlement arising from a Hawaii helicopter crash involving Heli-USA.
- The Hawaii district court lacked personal jurisdiction over AEC, denied discovery, and transferred the case to the Northern District of Texas.
- The Texas district court applied Texas choice‑of‑law rules and dismissed, holding Texas law bars contribution claims for out‑of‑court settlements.
- The helicopter was designed by Eurocopter S.A.S. (AEC’s parent); AEC provided parts/advice and sent bulletins from Texas to Hawaii and other places.
- The Parts Agreement includes a Texas choice‑of‑law clause; National Union settled with most passengers and released AEC and Eurocopter notwithstanding they were not parties to the settlements.
- National Union challenges (1) Hawaii’s transfer order and its personal jurisdiction ruling, and (2) the Texas choice‑of‑law ruling; the court lacks jurisdiction to review Hawaii orders and affirms the Texas choice of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review Hawaii transfer orders | National Union urges review of Hawaii transfer for lack of jurisdiction. | AEC argues transfer was proper and review belongs to Texas court. | We lack appellate jurisdiction over Hawaii transfer orders. |
| Choice of law governing contribution claims | Texas law should apply based on Restatement § 145/§ 6 factors. | Texas policy and forum interests support Texas law; Jinkins policy. | Texas law applies to National Union’s contribution claims. |
| Certification to Texas Supreme Court (Jinkins reconsideration) | National Union seeks certification to revisit Jinkins. | Certification not warranted under Tex. Supreme Court rules. | National Union's certification motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Jinkins, 739 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1987) (public policy against joint tortfeasor rights in purchasing claims)
- Ellis v. Great Sw. Corp., 646 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1981) (transfer choice-of-law rules depending on transfer context)
- Tel-Phonic Servs., Inc. v. TBS Int’l., Inc., 975 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1992) (transfer choice-of-law rules in inter-circuit transfers)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (mandatory use of forum state’s choice-of-law rules in diversity cases)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (Restatement § 6/§ 145 factors favor Texas law in this context)
- Int’l Proteins Corp. v. Ralson-Purina Co., 744 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. 1988) (Texas public policy on joint tortfeasor liability)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 896 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1990) (policy considerations in conflict of laws)