Sandra Waite v. AII Acquisition Corp.
901 F.3d 1307
11th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff James Waite was exposed to asbestos in Massachusetts in the 1960s from a joint compound allegedly containing asbestos mined/sold by Union Carbide; he later moved to Florida (1978) and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015.
- The Waite plaintiffs sued Union Carbide in Florida state court for negligent failure to warn and strict liability for defective design; Union Carbide removed to federal court.
- Union Carbide is incorporated in New York and has its principal place of business in Texas; it had various historical contacts with Florida (registered to do business, maintained an agent, sold asbestos to Florida customers, operated a Florida plant, discussed holding a Florida seminar).
- The district court ultimately dismissed Union Carbide for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Waite plaintiffs appealed, arguing specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction, and implied consent via Florida business registration.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: specific jurisdiction failed because the plaintiffs could not show Union Carbide’s Florida contacts were a but-for cause of the alleged torts; general jurisdiction and implied consent likewise failed under Daimler and Florida law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific jurisdiction | Union Carbide’s business in Florida (sales, plant, seminar plans) and plaintiff’s injury (diagnosis in Florida) connect the claims to Florida | Union Carbide’s Florida contacts did not cause or relate to the alleged torts; injury in Florida is due to plaintiff’s move, not defendant’s contacts | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiffs failed to show defendant’s Florida contacts were a but-for cause of the torts (Walden/Bristol-Myers framework applied) |
| General jurisdiction | Union Carbide’s substantial, continuous activities in Florida (registration, plant, customers, distributor) render it “at home” in Florida | Company is not incorporated or headquartered in Florida; its Florida contacts are insufficient to make it at home under Daimler | No general jurisdiction: contacts do not approximate place of incorporation or principal place of business; not an exceptional case |
| Consent via Florida registration | By registering to do business and appointing an agent, Union Carbide consented to general jurisdiction in Florida | Florida statutes merely provide for service of process; no clear state-law construction that registration equals consent to all-purpose jurisdiction | No implied consent: Florida statutes’ plain text and Florida case law do not show registration equals consent to general jurisdiction |
| Application of but-for causation for specific jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argued Supreme Court cases do not require but-for causation | Circuit precedent (Oldfield, Fraser) requires but-for causation; Supreme Court silence does not overrule Eleventh Circuit precedents | Applied circuit precedent requiring but-for causation; plaintiffs’ contrary argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts test)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction requires being “at home” in forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (paradigm forums; exceptional-case rule for general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (plaintiff’s presence in forum insufficient; focus on defendant’s contacts)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (no jurisdiction absent connection between forum and specific claims)
- Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (Eleventh Circuit: tort must be but-for caused by forum contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (standard for analyzing Florida long-arm + due process)
- Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (state statute can, in some circumstances, constitute consent to jurisdiction)