Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Axa General Insurance Hong Kong Ltd.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT January 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50880
Summary Calendar
LAKEWOOD ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AXA GENERAL INSURANCE HONG KONG LIMITED,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(5:03-CV-1181)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Company appeals the
dismissal of its action for declaratory relief, which sought a
determination of additional insured coverage under an insurance
policy issued by AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited to a third
entity. AXA was granted a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) dismissal for
lack of in personam jurisdiction. Lakewood claims AXA has
sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for such jurisdiction.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
AXA has its principle place of business in, and is
incorporated in, Hong Kong. AXA issued a general liability policy
to Defond Manufacturing Limited, also a Hong Kong corporation, for
the 2002 calender year. Defond, a manufacturer of electrical
switches, sold 2.7 million switches to Lakewood for installation in
box fans it manufactures for sale. A 29 January 1997 purchase
order, used by Lakewood to order the switches from Defond,
provided, inter alia, that Defond would (1) indemnify Lakewood for
any damages caused by defects in the switches and (2) provide a
certificate of insurance naming Lakewood as an additional insured
under Defond’s general liability policy. Defond never provided the
certificate of insurance.
In November 2002, a Texas resident died from a fire allegedly
caused by a faulty Defond switch in a Lakewood fan. The decedent’s
estate sued Lakewood in Texas state court for wrongful death.
Lakewood contends AXA owes it a defense and indemnity because the
1997 purchase order executed by Defond made Lakewood an “additional
insured” under Defond’s 2002 general liability policy with AXA.
Lakewood filed this action in district court for declaratory
relief, seeking a determination of its coverage vel non under the
AXA policy. The district court dismissed for lack of in personam
jurisdiction, making no findings of fact, as there were no material
factual disputes.
2
Lakewood claims a Texas court could exercise personal
jurisdiction based on either specific or general jurisdiction. We
review de novo the district court's in personam jurisdiction
determination. E.g., Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310
F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). For essentially the reasons stated
by the district court, we hold AXA lacked the requisite minimum
contacts necessary for courts in Texas to have in personam
jurisdiction over AXA.
AFFIRMED
3