Associated Transport v. Productos

Citation: 197 F.3d 1070Docket: 98-3765

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; December 7, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Associated Transport Line, Inc. and Commercial Union Assurance Company appeal the dismissal of their complaint against Productos Fitosanitarios Proficol El Carmen, S.A. for lack of personal jurisdiction. Proficol, a Colombian herbicide manufacturer, contracted with Transport to ship herbicide from Colombia to Trinidad, with planned stops in Texas and Florida. During transit, the herbicide leaked in Florida waters, leading to a costly clean-up initiated by Transport after Proficol provided inaccurate chemical information. Transport incurred $673,177 in clean-up costs due to Proficol’s alleged negligent misidentification, which they argue would have only cost $15,000 if correctly identified.

Transport claims jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, asserting that Proficol committed a tort in Florida. However, Proficol contends it has insufficient contacts with Florida and that no tort occurred within the state. The district court supported Proficol's position, agreeing that jurisdiction was lacking, leading to the dismissal of the case. Transport's appeal, reviewed de novo, hinges on proving that Proficol's actions constituted a tort in Florida, specifically under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Transport relies on the case Chatham Steel Corp. v. Brown to argue that a tort for CERCLA violations occurs where the environmental hazard is located. In Chatham Steel, a South Carolina company sold spent batteries to a Florida recycler, which led to an acid spill and contamination of the site. The court found that the company's actions constituted a tortious act under Florida's long-arm statute, allowing jurisdiction in Florida courts due to the creation of an environmental hazard.

Transport claims that Proficol similarly caused damage in Florida by instigating a cleanup, thus violating federal law and warranting personal jurisdiction under the same rationale. However, Transport does not allege that Proficol was responsible for the initial spill. Instead, Transport seeks to recover $657,177 due to misinformation regarding the hazardous nature of the spilled chemical, rather than the $15,000 for the cleanup itself.

The Chatham Steel case is deemed inapplicable here because it involved direct involvement in hazardous waste disposal, whereas Transport's claims against Proficol center on miscommunication, not direct involvement with the spill. The alleged negligence pertains to the misidentification of the chemical, leading to excessive cleanup costs, rather than any CERCLA violation related to the spill itself. Therefore, the basis for asserting jurisdiction over Proficol under the Chatham Steel precedent is invalid.

Proficol's potential liability to Transport is not based on a violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) but rather on its alleged failure to accurately communicate the chemical composition of a herbicide, leading to Transport's excessive cleanup costs. This miscommunication occurred during a phone call in Colombia, establishing that the alleged tort took place outside Florida, where Transport seeks to recover these costs. Florida courts assert that merely sustaining an injury in the state does not fulfill jurisdictional requirements. Transport argues for personal jurisdiction over Proficol under Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows federal jurisdiction for foreign defendants with insufficient state contacts if due process is satisfied. Proficol is not subject to Florida’s long-arm statute and has limited contacts with the U.S., having exported products and made purchases sporadically between 1993 and 1996. However, the shipment of herbicide that passed through Florida waters is deemed inadequate to establish jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), as it does not relate to the tort in question, which did not occur in Florida.

Awareness that a product will enter a state does not satisfy due process requirements for personal jurisdiction. A party’s contacts with a forum unrelated to the litigation must be substantial, and Proficol's contacts, including sales and purchases, do not meet this threshold. Prior cases establish that mere purchases, even if frequent, do not justify jurisdiction, as seen in *Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall*, where significant purchases from the U.S. were insufficient for jurisdiction. Proficol’s nine sales over four years, along with other cited precedents, demonstrate that its activities fail to establish general jurisdiction. Additionally, jurisdiction under Section 48.193(b)(1) is not applicable as Proficol has not committed a tort in Florida. Therefore, the district court's judgment is affirmed, concluding that Proficol lacks sufficient contacts with the U.S. to warrant personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).