On April 27,1979, plaintiff Freddie Pear-row slipped and fell on the floor of the Hospitality Suite at Opryland USA in Nаshville, Tennessee. The fall resulted in a broken arm. Pearrow, a resident of Arkansas, sued defendant National Life and Accident Insurance Co. (National), alleging that National owned and oрerated Opryland and that National’s employees at Opryland had negligently waxed the floоr, as a result of which Pearrow had fallen and broken her arm. National moved to dismiss for lack оf personal jurisdiction, and the district court 1 granted the motion. For reversal Pearrow argues that the district court had jurisdiction because (1) National has transacted business in Arkansas; and (2) Nationаl has appointed the Arkansas Commission of Insurance as its agents for service of process. We affirm.
In order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation, that corporation must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
In
Martin,
Senior Judge Henley, then Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas, held that the Arkansas long arm statute required that thе plaintiff’s injuries must arise from the defendant’s Arkansas activities before jurisdiction can be had.
In this case, National сonducts insurance business in Arkansas. Clearly, however, Pearrow’s arm injury in Tennessee has nothing to do with Nаtional’s insurance business in Arkansas. National has also, according to Pearrow’s complaint, sent brochures into Arkansas soliciting Pearrow to visit Opryland.
2
As a result, Pearrow alleges she went to Opryland where she was injured. This connection is too tenuous. Pearrow’s cause of action is for negligence, and it cannot be said that the negligence “arose out of” the solicitаtion in Arkansas.
See Jeanway Industries
v.
Knudson Manufacturing Co.,
Pearrow also argues that because National appointed thе Arkansas Commissioner of Insurance as its agent for service of process, National has subjеcted itself to the jurisdiction of the Arkansas courts. Appointment of the Commissioner of Insurancе is a condition imposed under Arkansas law on any foreign insurance company conducting insurаnce business in Arkansas. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 66-2218.
3
To the extent § 66-2218 can be read as jurisdictional rather than as a methоd of serving process,
4
it does not apply to this case. That section can be read, at its broadest, to cover only causes of action arising out of the insurance business,
New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Colvin,
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable William R. Overton, United States District Judge for thе Eastern District of Arkansas.
. National seems to argue that it did not solicit Pearrow’s visit, but rather that Opryland USA solicited Pearrow’s visit. The relationship between the two entities is not clear from the reсord, and we assume for purposes of this appeal that National and Opryland are thе same entity.
. Section 66-2218 provides in part:
Service of process — Commissioner as process agent. — (1) Each foreign insurer applying for a certificate of authority to transact businеss in Arkansas and every domestic reciprocal insurer shall file with the Commissioner an appоintment of the Commissioner and his successor’s [successors] in office, on a form as furnished by the Commissiоner, as its attorney to receive service of legal process issued against it in this State. Thе appointment shall be irrevocable, shall bind the insurer and any successor in interest or to the assets or liabilities of the insurer, and shall remain in effect as long as there is outstanding in Arkansas any obligations or liability of the insurer resulting from its transactions therein.
. We express no opinion on the propriety of service of process under § 66-2218 in a federal court proceeding where other methods of service are available. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(3).