Peruyero v. Airbus S.A.S., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1283

Plaintiff Orlando Peruyero, as personal representative of Braulio Peruyero’s estate, sued BAE Systems PLC and related entities for asbestos exposure causing mesothelioma allegedly from work on BAE-manufactured aircraft.
Decedent’s relevant work on Bristol Britannia and Vickers Viscount aircraft for Cubana Airlines occurred in Havana from 1956–1961; Peruyero later moved to Florida and worked as a mechanic through 1992 but submitted no evidence linking post‑1961 exposure to BAE aircraft.
BAE is a U.K. company that asserts it never was authorized to do business in Florida and never maintained offices or conducted business in Florida.
BAE moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2); the parties disputed which Florida long‑arm statute governs (the statute in effect at the time of the tort controls).
The Court concluded the long‑arm statute in effect when the alleged tortious acts occurred (Fla. Stat. § 47.16, the 1955/1957 version) applies, which affords only specific jurisdiction and requires a causal connexity between the defendant’s Florida activities and plaintiff’s cause of action.
Peruyero failed to rebut BAE’s evidence limiting exposure to 1956–1961, did not show BAE transacted business in Florida or that its U.S. subsidiaries are BAE’s alter egos, and did not properly move for jurisdictional discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable Florida long‑arm statute	Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (general jurisdiction) or later statutes apply because BAE had substantial activity in Florida	The statute in effect when the tort occurred controls (Fla. Stat. § 47.16)	Court: § 47.16 (1955/1957) applies because alleged exposure was 1956–1961
Specific jurisdiction under § 47.16 (connexity)	BAE sold aircraft to U.S. carriers (e.g., Capital Airlines) that served Miami, so Decedent’s injuries arose from BAE’s Florida‑connected activity	Mere placement of product into stream of commerce without intent to serve Florida does not establish connexity or satisfy § 47.16	Court: Plaintiff failed to show the required causal connection; no specific jurisdiction under § 47.16
Attribution of jurisdiction via U.S. subsidiaries (piercing corporate veil)	BAE used U.S. subsidiaries to conduct business in Florida, so jurisdiction over subsidiaries should reach BAE	Parent and subsidiaries are separate; plaintiff must show subsidiaries are alter egos and improper conduct to pierce veil	Court: Plaintiff did not show subsidiaries were mere instrumentalities or alter egos; veil not pierced
Jurisdictional discovery request	Plaintiff sought limited discovery to develop jurisdictional facts	Defendant opposed; court noted plaintiff did not formally move for discovery	Court: Request denied (procedurally flawed and no genuine dispute to justify discovery)

Verizon Trademark Servs., LLC v. Producers, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (personal jurisdiction 12(b)(2) framework)
Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must substantiate jurisdictional allegations after defendant rebuts them)
Consol. Dev. Corp. v. Sherritt, Inc., 216 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000) (parent/subsidiary separate entities; standards for attributing contacts)
Fibreboard Corp. v. Kerness, 625 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1993) (long‑arm statute governing the time of the tort controls to give fair notice)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (stream‑of‑commerce alone insufficient for due process jurisdiction)
PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2010) (construe reasonable inferences for plaintiff in jurisdictional disputes)
Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1990) (both long‑arm statute and due process analysis must be satisfied for jurisdiction)