Title: Davis v. Pyrofax Gas Corp.
Citation: 492 So. 2d 1044
Docket Number: 66497
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 19, 1986

492 So. 2d 1044 (1986)
Ernest William DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
PYROFAX GAS CORPORATION, Etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 66497.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 19, 1986.
Rehearing Denied September 9, 1986.
John W. Tanner, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jonathan C. Hollingshead of Pitts, Eubanks, Hannah, Hilyard &amp; Marsee, for Pyrofax Gas Corp., and William E. Johnson and Bryan W. Crews of Parker, Johnson, Owen &amp; McGuire, Orlando, for Goss, Inc.
SHAW, Justice.
This cause is before us on certificate from the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(6), Florida Constitution. The certified question is:
Davis v. Pyrofax Gas Corp., 753 F.2d 928, 930 (11th Cir.1985).
The complaint, filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, alleged that the plaintiff in 1975 purchased a gas space heater from Pyrofax Gas Corporation in Michigan that was manufactured by Goss, Inc. The plaintiff brought the heater into Florida, where it malfunctioned, causing injury. As stated by the circuit court of appeals:
Id. at 929-30. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to perfect service of process. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which then certified to this Court the question set out above.
Personal jurisdiction in a federal diversity action must accord with the law of the state in which the federal court sits. See Woodham v. Northwestern Steel and Wire Co., 390 F.2d 27 (5th Cir.1968).
Jetco Electronics Industries v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228, 1232 (5th Cir.1973), reh. denied, 474 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir.1973) (citations omitted). It is the first inquiry with which we are concerned in this case. The eleventh circuit court is concerned specifically with the applicability of section 48.193(1)(f)2, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides:
Interpreting section 48.193(1)(f)2 in the past, we said,
Electro Engineering Products Co. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862, 864 (Fla. 1977). The defendants argue that under the plain meaning of the subsection Florida courts do not acquire in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant engaged in business activities in Florida where the item causing injury in Florida was not purchased in Florida. We are unpersuaded and instead agree with the district court in Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druck-Gusswaremfabrik, 442 So. 2d 985 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), that such an interpretation of the statute is too restrictive. We think that section 48.193(1)(f)2 cannot necessarily be read in isolation to derive legislative intent. We do not think the legislature intended to deny a person the right to maintain an action in Florida, where the cause of action accrued and where the defendants are allegedly engaged in solicitation activities and promoting or distributing the same product as *1046 that which caused the injury in Florida. See § 48.193(1)(f)1.
The eleventh circuit court is concerned with the "ordinary course of commerce" language and whether there must be a connection between the specific product causing injury and the defendants' business activities in Florida. We do not read the statute as requiring that the specific item purchased by the plaintiff elsewhere and brought by him into Florida be brought in through the ordinary course of commerce. We find that the connection requirement is satisfied by the defendants' business activities in Florida. If a defendant has a relationship with Florida such that it is amenable to suit in Florida by a person who purchased its product in Florida, there is no logical reason to prohibit a plaintiff who purchased the same product elsewhere and was injured by it in Florida from maintaining an action in Florida. A manufacturer or wholesaler that avails itself of the privilege of conducting solicitation activities and promoting or distributing its product line within the State of Florida should be amenable to a suit in Florida by one whose injury is occasioned by the use in Florida of the corporation's product purchased out of the state. Under these circumstances the defendant is by virtue of the statute on notice that because of its activities in Florida it may be called upon to defend in Florida.
The certified question is answered in the affirmative.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.