49 Fla. L. Weekly D1942a
Wrongful Death – Aircraft Crash – Personal Jurisdiction – Foreign Manufacturer
3rd District Court of Appeal, September 25, 2024
Case No. 3D23-1217
Judge: Mark Jones
Background
This case concerns a wrongful death lawsuit following an aircraft crash in Florida. The decedent, Stephen Fraysher, was piloting a Pipistrel Sinus 912 light sport aircraft that crashed in Marathon, Florida, on April 9, 2020, leading to his death. The lawsuit was brought by Susan L. Ciccolini, as the personal representative of Fraysher’s estate, against Pipistrel d.o.o., a Slovenian company that manufactures aircraft components, along with other defendants. Ciccolini alleged negligence and strict liability, claiming that Pipistrel d.o.o.’s products contributed to the crash and sought to establish jurisdiction over Pipistrel d.o.o. under Florida’s long-arm statute.
Trial Court Proceedings and Jurisdictional Allegations
In her complaint, Ciccolini asserted that Pipistrel d.o.o.:
- Designed, manufactured, and sold aircraft parts and components used in aircraft sold in Florida.
- Conducted business in Florida by intentionally placing its products into the U.S. stream of commerce with the expectation that they would be used in Florida.
Ciccolini further contended that the marketing and promotion of Pipistrel aircraft in Florida involved representatives from Pipistrel USA (an independent third-party distributor), who facilitated sales, training, and support for customers like Fraysher.
Pipistrel d.o.o. filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it lacked sufficient contact with Florida to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction. The company stated in a sworn affidavit that:
- It is based in Slovenia, not incorporated in Florida, and has no offices, employees, or representatives in the state.
- It did not manufacture, market, sell, or deliver the aircraft involved in the accident, nor did it conduct business in Florida.
- Pipistrel USA is not an agent or corporate affiliate of Pipistrel d.o.o., and the company did not participate in any Florida-based promotional activities.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Pipistrel d.o.o. appealed.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo, considering whether Pipistrel d.o.o. was subject to specific jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute and constitutional due process requirements. According to the two-step framework established in Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, courts must first determine if the complaint alleges facts that bring the defendant within the reach of the long-arm statute. Second, courts assess whether the defendant has the “minimum contacts” necessary to satisfy due process.
- Sufficiency of Jurisdictional Allegations
Ciccolini’s complaint alleged that Pipistrel d.o.o. intentionally marketed and distributed aircraft components with the knowledge and expectation that they would be used in Florida, thereby subjecting the company to jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(a)(6) of the Florida Statutes. This provision allows for jurisdiction over a nonresident manufacturer for injuries caused by its products when used in the ordinary course of commerce in Florida. - Pipistrel d.o.o.’s Affidavit
Pipistrel d.o.o.’s Chief Technology Officer submitted an affidavit denying any direct connection to Florida. The affidavit asserted that:- The company manufactures aircraft parts solely in Slovenia and has no operational presence in Florida.
- It did not design, manufacture, sell, or distribute the specific aircraft involved in Fraysher’s accident.
- Pipistrel USA, which advertises and distributes Pipistrel aircraft in the U.S., operates independently and is not controlled by Pipistrel d.o.o.
- d
Because this affidavit fully disputed the jurisdictional allegations, the burden shifted back to Ciccolini to provide sworn proof of jurisdiction, which she failed to do.
- Plaintiff’s Failure to Provide Countervailing Evidence
Ciccolini’s response included email communications between Fraysher and representatives of Pipistrel USA, a death certificate, and a declaration from her attorney. However, none of these documents directly refuted the affidavit from Pipistrel d.o.o. or demonstrated that Pipistrel d.o.o. had committed any acts in Florida that would justify jurisdiction.
As a result, the court concluded that Ciccolini did not meet her burden to establish personal jurisdiction over Pipistrel d.o.o. under Florida’s long-arm statute.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying Pipistrel d.o.o.’s motion to dismiss. The court found that the allegations and evidence presented were insufficient to bring Pipistrel d.o.o. within the scope of Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Pipistrel d.o.o. from the lawsuit.
Today’s Insight:
“Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.”