Casualty Assur. Risk Ins. Brokerage Co. v. Dillon, No. 91-16088

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before WIGGINS, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ; WIGGINS
• Citation: 976 F.2d 596
• Parties: CASUALTY ASSURANCE RISK INSURANCE BROKERAGE CO., a Guam Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John J. DILLON, III, individually and as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Indiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 91-16088
• Decision Date: 19 August 1992

Page 596

976 F.2d 596 CASUALTY ASSURANCE RISK INSURANCE BROKERAGE CO., a Guam
Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John J. DILLON, III, individually and as Insurance
Commissioner for the State of Indiana, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-16088. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 19, 1992 ^*.
Decided Oct. 5, 1992.

Page 597

James S. Brooks, Brooks, Brooks & Perez, Agana, Guam, for plaintiff-appellant.

John A. Spade, Mair, Mair & Spade, Agana, Guam, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam.

Before WIGGINS, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

WIGGINS, Circuit Judge:

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff, Casualty Assurance Risk Insurance Brokerage Co. (CARIB), filed a tort action against defendant John Dillon both in his official capacity as Indiana Insurance Commissioner and in his personal capacity. The Superior Court of Guam dismissed this

Page 598

action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Appellate Division of the United States District Court for the district of Guam affirmed. We affirm the district court's decision. BACKGROUND

The facts relevant to the existence of personal jurisdiction in this case are undisputed. CARIB is incorporated under the laws of Guam for the purpose of engaging in the insurance business. Although CARIB maintains a home office on Guam, most of CARIB's correspondence is handled through its Washington, D.C. office. CARIB has not sold any insurance on Guam nor derived any income from Guam. Medical Liability Purchasing Group (MLPG) is an Indiana corporation that is closely related to CARIB. CARIB employees in the Washington, D.C. office receive and open all of MLPG's mail and handle all of MLPG's phone inquiries. Moreover, MLPG's checking account requires the signature of a CARIB vice-president.

In 1988, MLPG attempted to qualify as an Indiana purchasing group offering medical malpractice insurance to health care providers. MLPG's only insurance carrier was CARIB, which had never been licensed in Indiana nor any other state. In September 1988, the Indiana Attorney General directed MLPG to cease its activities because it was not registered as a purchasing group pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 3901-3906 (1988). After MLPG and CARIB refused to comply with this order, the Attorney General filed for an injunction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

In the meantime, the defendant and his staff contacted the Guam Insurance Commissioner to obtain information about CARIB. This limited correspondence is the only contact the defendant has had with Guam. In October 1988, the Guam Insurance Commissioner sent a letter to the defendant's staff advising them that CARIB "is still in its infancy and needs to develop to become viable." The letter further advised Indiana to "be very cautious in admitting this company to do business in your jurisdiction."

In June 1989, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana enjoined MLPG's purchasing group activities. The court also ordered MLPG to provide the defendant with the names and addresses of all healthcare providers MLPG had solicited for business, and it directed the defendant to send a letter to these healthcare providers to inform them of the injunction. ¹ Shortly thereafter, in July 1989, the Guam Insurance Commissioner notified Indiana that CARIB's Certificate of Authority had not been renewed. The defendant then mailed letters informing the healthcare providers that CARIB's purchasing group activities had been enjoined and that CARIB's Certificate of Authority had been revoked pending a hearing. The letter was never sent to or circulated on Guam because CARIB had not solicited any business on Guam.

The causes of action in this case arise from this letter. CARIB alleges that the letter was drafted to be misleading and to harm CARIB. CARIB alleges (1) that sending the letter constituted the tort of libel, (2) that the defendant committed the tort of slander by orally communicating the same information to a healthcare provider, (3) that the letter and oral communications tortiously interfered with CARIB's contractual relations with healthcare providers, and (4) that the defendant engaged in a common law conspiracy to harm CARIB. The Superior Court of Guam dismissed CARIB's complaint because it determined that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the District of Guam, Appellate Division, affirmed

Page 599

this decision. CARIB appeals the district court's decision. DISCUSSION

This case turns on a single issue. We must determine whether sufficient minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum to allow the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. Because the jurisdictional facts are undisputed in this case, the constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. Brainerd v. University of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th Cir.1989); Haisten v. Grass Valley Medical Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1986).

In Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987), the Supreme Court summarized the limitations that the Due Process Clause places on the power of a forum to exert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Unless "the defendant purposefully established 'minimum contacts' in the forum...