author: KUHN, J. WELCH, J.,

text:
    Daniel A. CRUMMEY v. Linda MORGAN, John R. Fulton a/k/a J.R. Fulton, J.R. Fulton d/b/a the Trading Post, [d/b/a] Watercraft Unlimited.
    No. 2007 CW 0087.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Aug. 8, 2007.

      Clayton J. Joffrion, New Orleans, Counsel for Respondent Daniel A. Crummey.
    Keith D. Crawford, Gonzales, Counsel for Relator Linda Morgan, John R. Fulton a/k/a J.R. Fulton, J.R. Fulton d/b/a The Trading Post, d/b/a Watercraft Unlimited.
    Before: WHIPPLE, KUHN, GAIDRY, WELCH, and HUGHES, JJ.
   KUHN, J.

| PApplicants-defendants, Linda Morgan, John R. Fulton also know ás J.R. Fulton, and J.R. Fulton doing business as The Trading Post, doing business as Watercraft Unlimited, apply for supervisory writs, seeking a review of the trial court’s denial of their exception of lack of personal jurisdiction. We deny the application.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This litigation arises from the sale of an allegedly defective 1981 recreational vehicle (“RV”) by the Texas defendants to a Louisiana resident, plaintiff-relator, Daniel A. Crummey, who learned of the availability of the vehicle by viewing it on eBay. On June 29, 2006, after purchasing the RV from the defendants, Crummey filed a petition for damages averring that it was defective. He alleged that the Louisiana district court had jurisdiction under the Louisiana long arm statute and that service had been made on the defendants on July 6, 2006.

The allegations of Crummey’s petition set forth the following facts. Crummey viewed numerous pictures of RVs for sale on eBay. After settling on one, he used an Ascension Parish telephone service line and sent inquiries to defendants about the condition and price of the RV. Crummey made an $800 down payment by credit card via telephone in Ascension Parish, and he expressly reserved the right to rescind the sale pending inspection and testing of the vehicle.

Although the defendants offered delivery in Ascension Parish, he chose to pick up the RV in Princeton, Texas, to allow him the opportunity to actually test the vehicle’s condition. After he had “conducted as much of an inspection as was possible without actual highway driving,” Crummey paid the balance of $3,025 to lathe defendants. About 40 miles into his journey back to Louisiana, the vehicle quit running. Crummey also determined that the- dashboard air conditioner did not work, and that the RV’s generator would not run continuously. Crummey phoned defendants’ representatives, who were unable to fix the RV. Defendants’ representatives towed away the RV.

Crummey called Fulton, advising that he desired to rescind the sale and wanted a refund of $3,825, which included both the down payment and the balance he had paid to defendants. Defendants eventually agreed to rescind the sale, sent him a check for $3,025 marked “paid in full,” kept the down payment of $800, and charged another $500 “for [Fulton’s] trouble.”

Additionally, Crummey’s petition avers that the defendants made the following misrepresentations to him. On the eBay website, they posted the statement, “everything works great on this RV and will provide comfort and dependability for years to come. This RV will go to Alaska and back without problems!” In a subsequent telephone conversation with Crum-mey, Morgan misrepresented that she had been inside the vehicle and could confirm that the eBay representations were true. And after the RV had broken down, Morgan again misrepresented, in written correspondence dated June 6, 2006, that Crummey had rejected the offer to repurchase the RV and the defendants were holding the RV for him to pick up or they could deliver it to Ascension Parish if he sent adequate funds.

Defendants have not answered Crum-mey’s petition, filing instead a declinatory exception raising the objection of lack of jurisdiction over the person. Plaintiff thereafter propounded interrogatories, which were objected to by | defendants’ counsel, who refused to respond to the interrogatories until a trial court ruling on the issue of jurisdiction. At the hearing on the exception, the trial court deferred ruling on the declinatory exception, issuing instead an order requiring defendants to answer the interrogatories relevant to the issue of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over them. The trial court expressly stated that these responses to the interrogatories “shall not be deemed as [an] appearance” and would not be considered a “submission” by defendants to the court’s jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the trial court order, defendants gave the following responses in their answers to the interrogatories:

Two (2) items, which were sold by defendants, was (sic) delivered to the State of Louisiana within the last year. However, all sales and transfer of ownership took place in the State of Texas. Clear titles were provided on ALL sales to EVERY customer. The customer was free to obtain a title in any state they so chose after the sale. Of the two (2) deliveries in Louisiana, defendants were only able to locate information on one of these transactions.
Defendant’s son... delivered a boat ... July 5, 2006 to ... Houma, Louisiana. ...

They also stated that a vehicle may be purchased from them through the Internet if the purchaser is the high bidder or if the reserve amount was met or exceeded.

The trial court overruled the defendants’ exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, indicating:

[The defendants] originally entered Louisiana through the computer.... And that’s when they made the minimum contacts. When they entered Louisiana and they tried to sell a vehicle ... to an individual in Louisiana, they have entered our jurisdiction when they did that, and this is not an information-only site... eBay is not a site where you go and you advertise, although some people do maybe.... [I]n this particular case, it was obviously put on eBay for sale. This person contracted with them to buy that vehicle, sent them a deposit, and just went and just happened to sign the papers and all in Texas.... [T]hey did make minimum contact at that time, when they tried to solicit business here in Louisiana.

1 sFrom an order in conformity with the trial court’s ruling issued on January 20, 2007, defendants apply for supervisory writs.

DISCUSSION

Appellate courts conduct a de novo review of the legal issue of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident by a Louisiana court. Frederic v. Zodiac Dev., 02-1178, p. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/14/03), 839 So.2d 448, 452. A district court’s factual findings underlying a decision on the legal issue of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review. Griffith v. French, 97-2635, p. 3 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/28/98), 723 So.2d 1140, 1142, writ denied, 99-0220 (La.3/19/99), 740 So.2d 116.

On the trial of declinatory exceptions, evidence may be introduced to support or controvert any of the objections pleaded when the grounds thereof do not appear from the petition, citation, or return. See La. C.C.P. art. 930. Evidence of the existence of those predicate facts is crucial to the proper disposition of the exception. McKnight v. D & W Health Serv., Inc., 02-2552, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/7/03), 873 So.2d 18, 24; see also Byers v. Edmondson, 00-1985, p. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/9/01), 807 So.2d 283, 285, writ denied, 01-3238 (La.2/8/02), 809 So.2d 142 (affirming the trial court’s grant of an exception of lack of personal jurisdiction relying in part on excerpts from defendants’ deposition and their ^answers to discovery propounded by plaintiffs). Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s order requiring defendants to respond to interrogatories insofar as they were limited to elicit information on the underlying facts necessary to dispose of the issue of the court’s jurisdiction over the defendants.

The Louisiana long arm statute, La. R.S. 13:3201, provides for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, stating in pertinent part:

A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from any one of the following activities performed by the nonresident:
(1) Transacting any business in this state....
(4) Causing injury or damage in this state by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission outside of this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state....
B. In addition to the provisions of Subsection A, a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the United States.

With the enactment of La. R.S. 13:3201 B, the sole inquiry is whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with constitutional due process. Alonso v. Line, 02-2644 (La.5/20/03), 846 So.2d 745, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 967, 124 S.Ct. 434, 157 L.Ed.2d 311 (2003).

The due process test, which was first enunciated in Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 160, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), requires that to subject a nonresident defendant to a personal judgment, the defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The |7test has evolved to include a “minimum contacts” prong, which is satisfied by a single act or actions by which the defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Ruckstuhl v. Owens Coming Fiberglas Corp., 98-1126, p. 6 (La.4/13/99), 731 So.2d 881, 885-86, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1019, 120 S.Ct. 526, 145 L.Ed.2d 407 (1999) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). The nonresidents “purposeful availment” must be such that the defendant “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in the forum state. Ruckstuhl, 98-1126 at p. 6, 731 So.2d at 885 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Wood- son, 444. U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). Such contacts may be effectuated by mail and electronic communications, as well as physical presence. Spomer v. Aggressor Int’l, Inc., 00-1646, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/28/01), 807 So.2d 267, 272, writ denied, 01-2886 (La.1/25/02), 807 So.2d 250.

The “purposeful availment” requirement for the exercise of specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendants ensures that they will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of a random, fortuitous, or attenuated contact, or by the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. at 2183. To determine whether minimum contacts exist, a court must engage in a factual determination of “the relationship among the forum, the defendant, and the litigation.” A & L Energy, Inc. v. Pegasus Group, 00-3255, p. 6 (La.6/29/01), 791 So.2d 1266, 1271-72, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1022, 122 S.Ct. 550, 151 L.Ed.2d 426 (2001) (citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)).

| ^Defendants maintain that they do not have the requisite “minimum contacts” for a Louisiana court to exercise personal jurisdiction, asserting that: (1) the mere placing of an item for sale on eBay should not subject a foreign domiciliary or corporation to the personal jurisdiction of a Louisiana court; (2) entering a Louisiana judicial district via the computer through eBay or an information-only Internet website with no other forms of advertising or solicitation are insufficient “minimum contacts” to justify Louisiana’s exercise of personal jurisdiction; (3) they are a Texas-based corporation or individual residents and domiciliaries of Texas and should not be haled into a Louisiana court; (4) they do not maintain an office, bank account, telephone number, or post office box in Louisiana; and (5) they are not registered or licensed to do business in Louisiana and do not directly advertise, solicit business, or employ anyone in Louisiana. Defendants point out that Crum-mey initially made a deposit using a telephone; he flew to Texas to purchase the RV; all deliveries and cash transactions occurred in Texas; and the vehicle was test driven in Texas. Thus, they contend, the only contact the parties have with Louisiana in this case is that plaintiff lives here.

Defendants rely on Quality Design and Constr., Inc. v. Tuff Coat Mfg., Inc., 05-1712 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/12/06), 939 So.2d 429, an opinion of this court, which addressed the issue of “minimum contacts” in the context of Internet transactions. In Tuff Coat, a Louisiana general contractor brought an action against a Colorado supplier, alleging that damages occurred when coating, purchased from the supplier using information gained from the supplier’s Internet site, leached into a water park’s water purification system.

|9In reaching its conclusion that the Louisiana court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Colorado supplier, the Tuff Coat court looked to Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1997), as a measure of an Internet site’s connection to a forum state, which had explained:

[O]uf review of the available cases ... reveals that the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal jurisdiction principles. At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into a contract with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. E.g., CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir.1996). At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. E.g., Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y.1996). The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site. E.g., Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F.Supp. 1328 (E.D.Mo.1996). (Emphasis added.)

Applying the sliding scale, the Tuff Coat court concluded that the supplier’s website was passive because it was informational only. Noting that Internet users could not purchase products from the supplier’s website and that web users could not download repeated or regular information from the website, the Tuff Coat court pointed out that the extent of interactivity between the Tuff Coat website and a web user was limited to an invitation to actual customers to make a one-time contact— initiated by the customers — which would allow them to have their names placed on a web page list if they so desired. The orders were then shipped 11()by the supplier FOB (free on board), which had the effect of transferring ownership of the products to customers when it left the loading dock. As such, it was not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the supplier. The Tuff Coat court also concluded that four other sales by the supplier to Louisiana entities were “fortuitous,” emphasizing that the prior shipments into Louisiana had been made FOB, and refused to find jurisdiction on that basis.

In the case presently before us, Crum-mey alleges that he was able to actually purchase an item, securing the sale by credit card payments initially issued from Louisiana and accepted by the defendants over the Internet. Thus, defendants’ use of eBay to sell the RV does not involve a merely passive website. Unlike the Tuff Coat website, which had been used only for informational purposes to advertise the supplier’s products, the sale before us involves the services of eBay, an Internet sales mechanism, which permitted the defendants’ product to be marketed for sale in Louisiana. Clearly, the defendants did business with Crummey over the Internet. Thus, the use of the eBay website to market and sell the RV to a Louisiana buyer is, on the Zippo sliding scale, more akin to those situations for which a finding of personal jurisdiction is proper.

The issue of whether an eBay seller was amenable to another state’s personal jurisdiction was addressed in Dedvukaj v. Maloney, 447 F.Supp.2d 813, (E.D.Mich.2006): There, a Michigan federal court held that it had personal jurisdiction over a New York eBay seller accused of breach, of contract, fraud, and Inmisrepresentation. The court noted that the defendant’s auction listing stated he would ship paintings anywhere in the United States. The listing also provided customers with a toll-free telephone number and an e-mail address to allow them to contact the New York eBay seller. Because the defendant did not limit buyers from Michigan from participating in his auction and displayed a willingness to communicate with buyers from any state, the Dedvukaj court concluded that the defendant had purposefully availed himself of the benefits of conducting business in Michigan. The number of e-mails and phone calls between the parties, the intentional and misleading nature of the communications between the parties, and the defendant’s acceptance of payment from Michigan were other factors that influenced the court’s finding of a “purposeful availment” by the New York eBay seller. The court stated:

Internet forums such as eBay expand the seller’s market literally to the world and sellers know that, and avail themselves of the benefits of this greatly expanded marketplace. It should, in the context of these commercial relationships, be no great surprise to sellers— and certainly no unfair burden to them — if, when a commercial transaction formed over and through the Internet does not meet a buyer’s expectations, they might be called upon to respond in a legal forum in the buyer’s home state. Sellers cannot expect to avail themselves of the benefits of the Internet-created world market that they purposefully exploit and profit from without accepting the concomitant legal responsibilities that such an expanded market may bring with it.

Dedvukaj, 447 F.Supp.2d at 820. See also Tindall v. One 1973 Ford Mustang, (E.D.Mich.2006), 2006 WL 1329168 (a Michigan court concluded it had personal jurisdiction over California residents, who had sold a resident a car via eBay, because they had transacted business in Michigan) and Montalvo v. First Interstate Finance Corp. (Me.Super.2005), 2005 WL 380727 (a Maine court ^concluded it had personal jurisdiction over Florida residents, who had sold a resident a 2000 Ford Ranger truck via eBay, because Maine has a strong interest in protecting consumers from fraudulent sales practices).

Analyzing the facts before us, applying the standards articulated in Tuff Coat, particularly Zippo’s sliding scale, we deny the writ application. The defendants entered into a contract to sell a vehicle — alleged to be defective — to a Louisiana resident utilizing the website, eBay, which greatly expanded their market. They accepted the original down payment, securing the sale with a credit card sent from Louisiana through the Internet. Defendants also provided Crummey with a telephone number which allowed him to engage in additional conversations with the sellers while he was in Louisiana. This was not an “information only” situation. Defendants used a variety of means of electronic communication to advertise, puff, negotiate, and accept payment for its product directed to a Louisiana consumer. Thus, sufficient minimum contacts, effectuated by electronic communications, have been established to maintain personal jurisdiction. See Hunter v. Meyers, 96-1075, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/27/97), 691 So.2d 318, 323. To hold to the contrary would have a chilling effect on e-commerce in that buyers, wary of being haled into the home courts of out-of-state sellers, will refrain from purchasing goods on eBay and other similar internet websites should the merchandise they considered purchasing be defective or otherwise not conform to the advertised online representations.

We additionally note that Crum-mey has averred that defendants posted allegedly false representations on the website about the quality of the RV which were viewed in Louisiana; similarly Morgan is alleged to have made | ^misrepresentations about the quality of the RV and the parties’ negotiation history. Thus, defendants have allegedly caused injury or damage in Louisiana by the offense of misrepresentation through their acts, and they have derived revenue from goods used or consumed in Louisiana so as to permit a Louisiana court another basis upon which to exercise personal jurisdiction over them under La. R.S. 13:3201 A(4).

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling concluding that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants, Linda Morgan, John R. Fulton a/k/a J.R. Fulton, and J.R. Fulton d/b/a The Trading Post, d/b/a Watercraft Unlimited. Accordingly, the writ application is denied.

MOTION TO DISMISS WRIT APPLICATION DENIED; WRIT DENIED.

WELCH, J., dissents with reasons.

GAIDRY, J., dissents for reasons assigned by WELCH, J.

WELCH, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully disagree with the majority opinion in this case. The plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that the defendants had sufficient “minimum contacts” with Louisiana so as to permit the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Therefore, the defendants’ writ application should be granted, the judgment reversed, and the defendants’ declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction sustained.

A plaintiff asserting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant has the initial burden of establishing that the defendant has established minimum contacts with this state. See Alonso v. Line, 2002-2644, p. 10 (La.5/2/0/03), 846 So.2d 745, 752, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 967, 124 S.Ct. 434, 157 L.Ed.2d 311 (2003); Quality Design and Const., Inc. v. Tuff Coat Mfg., Inc., 2005-1712, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/12/06), 939 So.2d 429, 433. Only after the plaintiff has met this burden, does a “presumption” arise “that jurisdiction is reasonable and the burden of proof and persuasion shifts to the defendant opposing jurisdiction to present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Id.

The majority relies on Quality Design v. Tuff Coat and the Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1997) “sliding láscale” to conclude that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana to maintain personal jurisdiction in this case. In doing so, the majority reasons that because the sale involved the services of eBay, an Internet sales mechanism, it permitted the defendants’ product to be marketed for sale in Louisiana. The majority then concludes that the defendants were “clearly” doing business with the plaintiff over the Internet, and likens the defendants’ use of the eBay website to cases, such as Dedvukaj v. Maloney, 447 F.Supp.2d 813 (E.D.Mich.2006); Tindall v. One 1973 Ford Mustang, 2006 WL 1329168 (E.D,Mich.2006); and Montalvo v. First Interstate Finance Corp., 2005 WL 380727 (Maine Super.2005), for which the assertion of personal jurisdiction under the Zippo “sliding scale” was deemed proper. However, these cases are factually distinguishable and do not support the assertion of personal jurisdiction in this case.

In Dedvukaj, the plaintiff, who won two separate auctions on eBay for paintings listed for sale by the nonresident defendants, brought suit for breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation. During the auction process, and after winning the auctions, the plaintiff communicated several times with the defendants. The plaintiff sent a check to the defendants for the purchase price, and the defendants accepted the payment and cashed the check. The defendants never | ¡¡shipped the paintings but offered the plaintiff a full refund, which the plaintiff refused. The court concluded that personal jurisdiction over the defendants was proper under Michigan’s long-arm statute because the defendants had transacted business in Michigan. Further, the court found the defendants “appear[ed] to be highly sophisticated sellers with an extensive offering of merchandise and a volume of business that requires a warehouse” and were not “random sellers on eBay.” The court noted that the “[defendants’ use of eBay [was] regular and systemic[,] ... [they had] an eBay store offering multiple categories of merchandise, including art, antiques, clothing, jewelry, and computers[, and were] ... listed as a ‘Power Seller,’ displayed] favorable marketing statistics, and required] a warehouse for their goods. Defendants offer[ed] a toll-free number and appeared] to have several employees.” The court, utilizing the Zippo analysis, concluded that such “factors present a situation where Defendants’ experience and extensive use of the eBay website” warranted a finding that the defendants had purposefully availed themselves the privilege of conducting business in Michigan and, thus, had had sufficient minimum contacts with Michigan to establish personal jurisdiction.

Thus, in Dedvukaj the court’s conclusion that jurisdiction was proper was based in large part on the overwhelming evidence in the record demonstrating that the nonresident defendants were a highly sophisticated eBay seller — evidence of which is notably absent in the case before us. The plaintiffs petition alleges that defendants solicited, advertised and offered for sale “over 100 boats, recreational vehicles, and motor vehicles per year using the internet,” but no evidence was presented to support that allegation, nor was any evidence presented as to the defendants’ overall eBay statistics or sales, its experience, or its sophistication as an eBay seller. Without such evidence, it is impossible to determine the “nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity [the defendants in this case] | conducts over the Internet” as required by the Zippo “sliding scale.” See Zippo, 952 F.Supp. at 1124.

In Montalvo v. First Interstate Finance Corp., 2005 WL 380727 (Maine Super.2005), the plaintiff, a resident of Maine, purchased a Ford Ranger Truck on eBay from a Florida entity. The plaintiff paid the purchase price, the tax, title, and registration fees, and to have the truck shipped to him in Maine. The court found that the defendant directed a series of purposeful transactions with the plaintiff over the course of several months, advertising and answering inquiries about the truck, concluding the sale, completing the paperwork, shipping the vehicle and responding to the plaintiffs complaint, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper.

In Montalvo, the court’s conclusion that jurisdiction was proper was based on the fact that there were a series of transactions over several months between the plaintiff and the nonresident defendant — a fact which is again absent in the case before us. According to the plaintiffs petition, the sale between the plaintiff and the defendants involved limited contact between the parties (which was at all times initiated by the plaintiff), and was a onetime sale completed in less than one-month.

Again, in Tindall, a dispute arose from a single eBay sale. The court found jurisdiction was proper because “in selling the car to a Michigan resident, Defendants have transacted business in the state, giving this Court personal jurisdiction over them.” While more factually analogous to this case, the Tindall case’s reasoning, which analogized the situation to a “phone call or written correspondence to the forum,” is flawed. A phone call or written correspondence to the forum must, by its very nature be specifically targeted to a resident of the forum, whereas placing an item for sale on eBay, which may be accessed by any person with a computer and Internet service, lacks such specific focus.

| ¡^Notwithstanding the lack of evidence before us concerning the “nature and quality of commercial activity” that the defendants conduct over the Internet, the majority errs in strictly relying on the Zippo “sliding scale” to determine whether personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised over a defendant who placed an item for sale on eBay. In Zippo and in other cases following the Zippo “sliding scale” analysis in Internet jurisdiction cases (including this court’s case of Quality Design v. Tuff Coat), the courts were evaluating the defendant’s commercial activity on the defendant’s oum website. In this case, the transaction at issue was not conducted on the defendants’ own website, but rather on the Internet auction website eBay. eBay is not a party to this action nor was it a party to the sale at issue. The defendants do not operate eBay nor do they control its commercial activity; they simply use it as a venue -for vehicle auctions.

Moreover, as noted in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 159, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) and reiterated in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2185, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), our “court[s] long ago rejected the notion that personal jurisdiction might turn on ‘mechanical’ tests” (such as the Zippo “sliding scale”), because the ultímate question remains whether the defendant’s contacts with the state are of such a quality and nature that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state. In other words — the exercise of personal jurisdiction must still comport with constitutional due process. See Alonso, 2002-2644 at p. 6, 846 6So.2d at 750 (noting that with the enactment of La. R.S. 13:3201(B) of the Louisiana long-arm statute, the sole inquiry is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with constitutional due process). Thus, regardless of whether the Zippo “sliding scale” analysis is employed or not, it should not be relied upon exclusively, to determine the appropriateness of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.

In analyzing the facts of this case, the majority focuses “particularly” on Zippo’s “sliding scale,” and in doing so, they fail to consider the most important question in any personal jurisdiction due process inquiry — that is, whether the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Louisiana, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) (when a forum state chooses to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”).

In finding that Louisiana has sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction, the majority notes that the defendants entered into a contract to sell a vehicle to a Louisiana resident utilizing the eBay website. However, the fact that a nonresident has contracted with a resident of the forum state is, by itself, insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478-79,105 S.Ct. at 2185.

The majority also notes that the defendants accepted the original down payment, which secured the sale, from a credit card sent from Louisiana and that the defendants provided the plaintiff with a telephone number, which allowed the plaintiff to engage the defendants in additional conversations while the plaintiff was in Louisiana. This analysis ignores several important legal precepts that must |7be considered when evaluating whether a defendant has purposefully availed itself the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. First, it is only the defendant’s contacts with the forum that count; “purposeful availment” “ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ... the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. at 2183; see also Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240 (“The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state”). Second, the acts of the defendant relied upon in establishing minimum contacts must be “purposefully directed” at the forum state rather than “random, isolated or fortuitous.” Id.; see also Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1478, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984).

Although no court of this state has ever considered the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be asserted over a nonresident defendant when an online auction is conducted through eBay (or some similar online auction), many other courts throughout the United States have considered the issue. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of these courts have concluded, that the usual online auction process does not rise to the level of “purposeful conduct” required to assert personal jurisdiction. See Jones v. Munroe, 2 Misc.3d 24, 773 N.Y.S.2d 498 (2003); Sayeedi v. Walser, 835 N.Y.S.2d 840, 15 Misc.3d 621 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.), 15 Misc.3d 621, 835 N.Y.S.2d 840 (2007); United Cutlery Corp. v. NFZ, Inc., 2003 WL 822851946 (D.Md.2003); Machulsky v. Hall, 210 F.Supp.2d 531 (D.N.J.2002); Winfield Collection, Ltd. v. McCauley, 105 F.Supp.2d 746 (E.D.Mich.2000); Boschetto v. Hansing, 2006 WL 1980383 (N.D.Cal.2006); Metcalf v. Lawson, 148 N.H. 35, 802 A.2d 1221 (2002); Karstetter v. Voss, 184 S.W.3d 396 (Tx.Ct.App.2006); Action Tapes Inc. v. Ebert, 2006 WL 305769 (N.D.Tex.2006); Action Tapes Inc. v. Weaver 2005 WL 3199706 (N.D.Tex. 2005); Buckland v. Hobbs, 176 N.C.App. 766, 627 S.E.2d 350, 2006 WL 695665 (2006); Muir v. Assad, 2005 WL 3367697 (Ga.Super.2005);9 Irving v. Wagner Zone, Inc., 68 Va. Cir. 127, 2005 WL 2242814 (2005); and Scordato v. Dyess, 2005 WL 3635104, 73 Pa. D. & C.4th 360 (2005). In so concluding, these courts focus on the manner in which the online auction is actually conducted, and note that the only intent manifested by an eBay seller is to “sell to the highest bidder,” regardless of identity or location, and that the choice of the highest bidder is almost invariably beyond the control of the seller. Thus because the eBay seller has no authority over the audience to which the listings of their goods are disseminated, these court conclude that such sales over eBay are merely “random” and “attenuated” contacts that do not rise to the level of “purposeful availment” required to meet due process.

The plaintiffs uses of a telephone and computer in Louisiana to contact and subsequently make a down payment to the defendants constitute unilateral activity by the plaintiff, and as such, are not contacts with Louisiana by the defendants. Furthermore, the few contacts that the defendants did have with Louisiana by |invirtue of this and any other sale on eBay were the exact type of “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” contacts that Burger King intended to exclude from jurisdictional reach. Placing an item for sale on eBay is a random method of initiating a sale and it is fortuitous in determining the location and whereabouts of the ultimate buyer. Moreover, there is no evidence that the defendants made a conscious choice to conduct this sale or other sales with a resident or residents of Louisiana, marketed then-vehicles to potential customers in Louisiana, specifically welcomed bids from residents of Louisiana or engaged in any other act which would indicate that the defendants were “purposefully availing” themselves the privilege of conducting business in Louisiana or taking advantage of Louisiana law. Rather, like any other sale on eBay, the defendants in this case were prepared to sell the RY to whomever the highest bidder happened to be regardless of the state in which they happened to reside.

Lastly, while the majority is concerned that a contrary holding would have a chilling effect on e-commerce buyers wary of being haled into the home courts of out-of-state sellers, perhaps greater significance lies in how the majority’s holding will affect e-commerce itself on eBay or other internet auction websites. The logical inference from the majority’s holding is that any person or entity placing an item for sale on eBay, bought by any person in any foreign forum, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of that foreign forum. The mere existence of such a rule in e-commerce would clearly inhibit such transactions — more so than any chilling effect on buyers wary of being haled into the home courts of out-of-state sellers.

While the plaintiff in this case will certainly be inconvenienced by having to go to Texas to assert his claim against the defendants, the plaintiff bought the RY without inspection knowing that it was in Texas. The plaintiff specifically chose to go to Texas to retrieve the RV and the sale of the RV was finalized in Texas. To summon the defendants from Texas into a Louisiana court on this matter and to _Jjjassert personal jurisdiction over them, when they lack sufficient minimum contacts with this state, offends due process.

Thus, I respectfully dissent.

      . Plaintiff-relator filed a motion to dismiss the writ application asserting that it was untimely and lacked required documentation. The gist of his contention is that, although the request for writs was timely, the trial court set the return date outside the thirty-day limitation set forth in La. U.R.C.A. Rule 4-3; therefore, the application is untimely. This court routinely treats a return date set by the trial court outside the thirty-day limit as an extension of the return date under Rule 4-3. See e.g., Gibbs v. Delatte, 05-0281, p. 6 n. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/22/05), 927 So.2d 1131, 1135 n. 5, writ denied, 06-0198 (La.4/24/06), 926 So.2d 548 (citing Barnard v. Barnard, 96-0859 (La.6/24/96), 675 So.2d 734). And relator has supplied the missing documentation. Thus, we find the application complies with the rules and deny the motion to dismiss.

      . "Free on board” is defined as "A mercantile-contract term allocating the rights and duties of the buyer and the seller of goods with respect to delivery, payment, and risk of loss, whereby the seller must clear the goods for export, and the buyer must arrange for transportation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 690 (8th ed.2004).

      . Zippo gave courts a "sliding scale,” to measure personal jurisdiction in claims involving internet contact, as follows:
      [t]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. ... At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the internet ... [and] involve[s] the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. ... At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site ... [and] does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. ... The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer ... [and] the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.

        Zippo, 952 F.Supp. at 1124. (Citations omitted.)

      . See Dara Chevlin, Schemes and Scams: Auction Fraud and the Culpability of Host Auction Web Sites, 18 Loy. Consumer. Rev. 223, 242-248; Metcalf v. Lawson, 148 N.H. 35, 802 A.2d 1221 (2002); McGuire v. Lavoie, 2003 WL 23174753 (N.D.Tex.2003); Sayeedi v. Walser, 835 N.Y.S.2d 840, 15 Misc.3d 621 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.), 15 Misc.3d 621, 835 N.Y.S.2d 840 (2007); and Malcolm v. Esposito, 63 Va. Cir. 440 (2003).

      . Professor Allan R. Stein has criticized the Zippo "sliding scale” as an "egregious failure of legal imagination” because it reverts back to evaluating jurisdiction in terms of physical presence rather than from a conceptual standpoint. Allan R. Stein, Personal Jurisdic

        tion and the Internet: Seeing Due Process Through the Lens of Regulatory Precision, 98 Nw. U.L.Rev. 411, 430 (2004); see also Joan K. Coston, Embrace the New, But Don’t Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the New Internet Age, 34 S.U.L.Rev. 249, 271-75 (2007).

      . In Jones, the defendant, a Florida resident, sold the plaintiff, a New York resident, an automobile through eBay. The automobile was retrieved by the plaintiff from the defendant's state of residence in Florida. The lower court ruled that such contact was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. The reviewing court upheld the dismissal of the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction under New York’s long arm statute.

      . In Sayeedi, the plaintiff, a resident of New York, brought an action for breach of contract against the defendant, a resident of Missouri, resulting from the sale of an automobile through eBay. The automobile was shipped to New York. The court concluded that to summon the defendant into a New York court would contravene the traditional notions of “fair play” and "substantial justice” that have become the "touchstone of personal jurisdiction.”

      . In United Cutlery, the district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction over an eBay seller whose manifested intent was merely to sell to the highest bidder.

      . In Winfield Collection, the district court determined that “[t]he only contact that [the defendant, a seller of homemade crafts on eBay] [was] proven to have [had] with the State of Michigan [were] fortuitous and de minimus: the results of two auction sales ... over which Defendant had little, if any control,” and thus it would " 'offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ to hale her into a Michigan court for suit when she has not purposefully availed herself of the benefits of Michigan law.”

      . In Boschetto, the plaintiff, a resident of California, purchased a defective 1964 Ford Gal-axie on eBay from defendant, a resident of Wisconsin. The plaintiff — not the defendant — made arrangements for the pick-up of the vehicle in Wisconsin, purchased the car knowing it was in Wisconsin, and purchased the car without an inspection by himself or a third party. Thereafter, when suit was brought in California, the district court determined that "[ejxercising personal jurisdiction would be improper ... because [defendant’s] actions were not' purposefully directed at the forum state.”

      . In Metcalf, the court concluded it had no personal jurisdiction over eBay seller from New Jersey because the seller did not purposefully avail herself the privilege of doing business in New Hampshire.

      . In Karstetter, a Kansas resident obtained a default judgment against a Texas resident, then sought to enforce judgment in Texas. The court found Kansas had no personal jurisdiction over the eBay seller who rejected the buyer’s offer to. preempt the auction and instead let the bidding process conclude. The court noted the interaction between the parties was minimal, the email correspondence between the parties relating to the purchase was initiated by the plaintiff, and there was no evidence that the party traveled to Kansas or engaged in other transactions with the appellant or other Kansas residents. Thus, the court concluded that the defendant's contacts with Kansas were random, isolated, and fortuitous, and did not rise to a level that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that he would be haled into a Kansas court.

      . In Action Tapes Inc. v. Ebert and Action Tapes Inc. v. Weaver, the district court found no personal jurisdiction over an eBay seller where the traditional auction process was not altered or circumvented in any manner.

      . In Buckland, the plaintiff, a North Carolina resident, filed a complaint alleging that he purchased a tractor from the defendant, a resident of Tennessee, on eBay. The court noted that the placement of an internet advertisement and one prior sale to a resident of North Carolina did not constitute sufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina to comply with the due process requirements of the due process clause to exercise personal jurisdiction. The defendant’s only contacts were the solicitation for bids on eBay (which were not targeted at any particular stale), emails exchanged between the parties, and the wire transfer of money to the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant never lived in North Carolina, never had an office or place of business in North Carolina, never worked in North Carolina, never shipped any goods to North Carolina, and when the plaintiff purchased the tractor, the plaintiff went to Tennessee to take delivery of the tractor.

      . In Muir, the plaintiff filed suit when an automobile purchased via eBay from Washington arrived in worse condition than advertised. The court found the defendant had insufficient contacts with Georgia to satisfy the minimum contact requirement because the defendant had never been to the state of Georgia and had made no particular effort to "reach out” to any resident of Georgia in advertising the car for sale. Furthermore; the sale transaction took place in Washington, through the buyer’s agent who received delivery of the car in Washington. Thus, the court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

      . In Irving, another dispute arising out of a used car sale on eBay, the seller required "local pickup in Illinois. The plaintiff arranged for pickup in Illinois and delivery of the car to Virginia, and thereafter sought rescission of sale in Virginia. The court concluded the transaction did not occur in Virginia, and therefore, Virginia had no personal jurisdiction.

      . In Scordato, the plaintiff purchased a 1981 Mercedes Benz from eBay from a Nevada defendant, who made misrepresentations about the vehicle’s mileage and condition. The car was in defendant’s possession in Nevada at the time of sale, the plaintiff mailed his payment for the automobile to the defendant in Nevada, and the plaintiff made arrangements to have the vehicle shipped from Nevada to Pennsylvania. The defendant never initiated contact with Pennsylvania in order to sell vehicle, and the defendant never entered Pennsylvania to contract for or complete the sale of the vehicle. The only contact the defendant had with Pennsylvania was to send the title and other paperwork for the vehicle to plaintiff after plaintiff initiated contact with defendant to purchase vehicle. The court described such contact as "attenuated” and "random” and therefore, court concluded that defendant's use of eBay to advertise his vehicle for sale did not justify assertion of jurisdiction over defendant.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LEON A' CANNIZZARO, JR., Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Joseph GREFER, Camille Grefer, Rose Marie Grefer, Hassi and Henry Grefer v. ALPHA TECHNICAL, et al.
    No. 2002-CA-1237.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Aug. 8, 2007.

      Andrew B. Sacks, John K. Weston, Law Offices of Andrew B. Sacks and Associates, Jenkintown, PA, Stuart- H. Smith, Michael G. Stag, Smith & Stag, L.L.C., Stephen B. Murray, Arthur M. Murray, Murray Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, Ron A. Austin, Austin & Associates, L.L.C., Harvey, LA, Jack W. Harang, Harang & Barker, L.L.C., Metairie, LA, Ralph R. Alexis III, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs, Joseph Grefer, et al.
    Glen M. Pilié, Ronald J. Sholes, Louis C. Lacour, Jr., Martin A. Stern, Adams And Reese LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Appellants, Exxon Mobil Corporation.
    (Court composed of Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR.).
   LEON A' CANNIZZARO, JR., Judge.

I,The Supreme Court of the United States (“U.S. Supreme Court”) vacated our judgment previously rendered in Grefer v. Alpha Technical, 2002-1237 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/31/05), 901 So.2d 1117, and remanded the matter for our further consideration in light of its decision in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (2007).

Factual Summary and Procedural History

The plaintiffs, Joseph Grefer, Camille Grefer, Rose Marie Grefer Haase and Henry Grefer (“the Grefers”), filed suit in August of 1997 against the defendants, Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”) and Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. (“ITCO”), among others, to recover damages for the contamination of a 33-acre tract of land with radioactive material. Between 1968 and 1992, ITCO, an oil field service company, had leased the land from Mrs. Camille Grefer for its business operations, which included the cleaning, inspecting, testing, threading, ^transporting and storage of oil well tubulars (pipe) for Exxon and other oil companies.

The Grefers asserted causes of action in negligence, strict liability, absolute liability, nuisance, fraud, and breach of contract. They sought compensatory damages for the loss of use and remediation of the property as well as punitive damages pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2315.3. After a five-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Grefers and awarded them compensatory damages in the amount of $56,145,000.00, which included $145,000.00 in general damages and $56,000,000.00 in restoration costs (special damages), as well as exemplary (punitive) damages in the amount of one billion dollars. The jury allocated 85% of the fault to Exxon, 5% to ITCO, and 10% to two absent defendants. The jury also found that “ITCO [was] entitled to recover from Exxon all amounts awarded against ITCO under its counterclaim against Exxon[.]” After the trial court held a separate hearing to consider the merits of an exception of prescription filed by Exxon, the trial judge rendered a judgment denying the exception and a judgment in accord with the jury’s verdict. Exxon, ITCO and the Grefers appealed. On appeal, we amended the judgment reducing the one billion dollar punitive award to $112,290,000.00, an amount equal to twice the compensatory award, and affirmed the judgments in all other respects. See Grefer, 3supra. The Grefers and Exxon applied for Writs of Certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which were denied.

Exxon subsequently filed motions to stay the execution of the judgment with both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, which were denied.

Thereafter, Exxon applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, which the Court granted, vacating our decision and remanding the matter for further consideration. See n. 1, infra.

. The Philip Morris case

In Philip Morris, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court that had upheld an award of punitive damages against Philip Morris. The U.S. Supreme Court found that although a plaintiff who seeks punitive damages may show harm to others who are nonparties to the litigation as a means of demonstrating the reprehensible nature of the defendant’s conduct, a jury may not use punitive damages to punish a defendant “directly on account of harms it is alleged to have visited on nonparties.” Philip Morris, 549 U.S. at -, 127 S.Ct. at 1064. The Court additionally found that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that the States make assurances that juries are not basing punitive damage awards on improper precepts. That is, although a jury may consider the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct in determining that | ¿punitive damages are warranted, it may not consider and ultimately punish a defendant for the harm caused to those who are not parties to the litigation.

The Philip Morris case arose out of the death of Jesse D. Williams, a heavy cigarette smoker. The plaintiff, Mr. Williams’ widow, Mrs. Mayóla Williams, represented his estate in the lawsuit filed in Oregon state court against Philip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboro, the decedent’s favorite brand of cigarette. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages against Philip Morris.

At the conclusion of the trial, Philip Morris had requested that the trial court give to the jury an instruction with regard to punitive damages. The requested instruction prohibited the jury from making an award of punitive damages for the impact of the defendant’s alleged misconduct on other persons who may bring their own lawsuits in which juries can resolve their claims and award punitive damages for those harms as such juries see fit. The trial court refused to give the instruction and Philip Morris objected. This was the sole basis upon which the U.S. Supreme Court granted Philip Morris’ writ application. We are to now consider the Philip Morris decision in resolving Grefer as the U.S. Supreme Court directed.

The jury instructions in Grefer

At the trial in Grefer, Exxon proposed two jury instructions with respect to exemplary damages. The first, Exxon’s Proposed Instruction 17, reads as follows:

I .EXEMPLARY DAMAGES— GENERALLY
In this particular case, Louisiana law permits you to consider an additional element of damages called exemplary damages (or called “punitive damages” in other states).
You may only award exemplary damages if the plaintiffs prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
(1) the defendant’s conduct was wanton and reckless;
(2) the danger created by the defendant’s wanton and reckless conduct threatened or endangered public safety;
(3) the defendant’s wanton and reckless conduct occurred in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances; and
(4) the plaintiffs’ damages were caused by the defendant’s wanton and reckless conduct.
The phrase “wanton and reckless” means a conscious indifference to consequences, amounting almost to a willingness that harm to the public safety would follow. Stated another way, wanton and reckless conduct is that which amounts to intentional and deliberate action that has the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.
Unless you find that the defendant acted with almost a willingness that harm to the public safety would follow, then you may not award exemplary damages.
Even if you decide that the plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages, you may not award such damages for conduct that the defendants engaged in before 1984 or after 1996. Under Louisiana law, the plaintiffs are not entitled to exemplary damages for conduct that the defendants engaged in before 1984 or after 1996. [footnote omitted]

The second instruction, Exxon’s Pro-' posed Instruction 18, states,

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES— DISCRETIONARY
Exemplary damages are within your discretion. This means that even if you find that the defendants’ conduct was wanton or reckless, you are not required to award exemplary damages to the plaintiffs, [footnote omitted]

| f,The trial judge rejected the aforementioned instructions proposed by Exxon and instructed the jury on exemplary damages as follows:

(1) Under our law, in addition to the award of damages to compensate a plaintiff for the injuries suffered, you may award exemplary damages against a defendant when the plaintiff shows that the defendants were wanton or reckless in their disregard for public safety in the storage, handling or transport of hazardous or toxic substances.
(2) For the purposes of awarding exemplary damages, “wanton” and “reckless” mean something more than mere negligence. The defendant must have known that public safety was at risk or should have known it was highly probable that harm to the public would result from his conduct. In other words, in order to find “wanton” or “reckless” conduct, a plaintiff must prove the defendant’s alleged acts and omissions of negligence were accompanied by a conscious indifference to consequences amounting almost to a willingness that harm to the public safety would follow.
(3) Exemplary damages are regarded as a fíne or penalty for the protection of the public interest. Such damages are given to the plaintiff over and above the full compensation for the plaintiffs losses for the purpose of punishing the defendant, of teaching the defendant not to do it again, and of deterring others from following the defendant’s example. Exemplary damages are not awarded to benefit the injured party but to compel the wrongdoer to have due and proper regard for the rights of the public. You should award an amount of exemplary damages which you feel will be reasonably likely to accomplish that purpose in this case.
(4) Another factor you may consider in determining the amount of exemplary damage award is the nature and the extent of the harm to the plaintiffs. You may also consider each defendant’s financial position when determining the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded because the award is meant to be meaningful enough to actually deter wrongful conduct.
(5) Even if you decide that the plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages, you may not award such damages for conduct that the defendants engaged in before 1984 or after 1996.
(6) Exemplary damages are within your discretion. This means if you find that the defendant’s conduct was wanton or reckless, you are not required to award exemplary damages to the plaintiffs.

|7Piscussion

The trier of fact may consider the following factors in awarding exemplary damages: (1) the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff; (2) the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (3) the wealth or financial position of the defendant; (4) the imposition of punishment on the defendant; (5) the .deterrent effect, i,e. whether it will deter future or similar conduct by the defendant and others. See Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 439, n. 12, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 1688, n. 12, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908, Comment e (1979).

In instructing the jury with respect to whether exemplary damages should be awarded to the Grefers, the trial judge set forth a correct statement of the law. The trial judge referred to harm or the potential (risk of) harm to nonparties resulting from the defendant’s conduct when she referred to the public safety in her explanation of “wanton” and “reckless” conduct. As the reprehensible nature of the defendant’s conduct is a factor which the jury may consider in deciding whether exemplary damages are warranted and, if so, the amount that should be awarded, this instruction was permissible under the standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Philip Morris (a plaintiff may show harm to others in order to demonstrate reprehensibility).

The trial judge’s only other reference to nonparties occurred when she instructed the jury that exemplary damages were awarded not to benefit the plaintiff but to punish the defendant, to compel the defendant to have “proper regard for the rights of the public,” and to deter others from following the defendant’s example. The U.S. Supreme Court has found no constitutional Isviolation in imposing punitive damages “to further a State’s legitimate interest in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition.” Philip Morris, 549 U.S. at -, 127 S.Ct. at 1062, citing BMW of North America, Inc., v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). Thus, the trial court’s reference to nonparties within the context of the public’s interest and safety did not violate the defendant’s rights to due process.

Essentially, paragraphs two and three of the trial judge’s instructions on exemplary damages explained reprehensibility, i.e. “wanton” and “reckless” conduct as well as informed the jury that the award should punish the defendant and deter similar conduct. All three of these factors are permissible under the standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of this state.

Lastly, in paragraphs four, five and six, the trial judge charged the jury that they were to consider the harm done to the plaintiff, the defendant’s financial condition, the time periods for which exemplary damages were to apply, and that an award for such damages was solely within their discretion. None of these factors is objectionable or prohibited.

When we consider the totality of the trial court’s jury instructions on exemplary damages, we find they are both permissible and constitutional. Moreover, even though the record does not include the objections made by Exxon to the instructions during the jury charge conference, two facts should be noted. First, unlike the defendant in Philip Morris, Exxon raised no assignment of error on appeal as to either the trial court’s jury instructions or to the trial court’s refusal to give Exxon’s proposed jury instructions. Second, for all intents and purposes, the trial court’s instructions tracked almost verbatim Exxon’s proposed instructions. Thus, we find the trial court’s jury instructions herein pass constitutional muster.

| flThe question we are ultimately asked to decide is whether Exxon received a fair trial. In other words, in light of Philip Morris, was Exxon afforded all of the constitutional protections available under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution? We answer this “yes.”

Exxon’s Wanton and Reckless Conduct

Exxon argued in the first appeal that the jury’s award of exemplary damages must be vacated because the record does not support a finding that Exxon engaged in wanton and reckless conduct as required under La. C.C. art. 2315.3. .

The statute providing for exemplary damages for wanton and reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances must be strictly construed, as it imposes a penalty. Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767, p. 27 (La.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1219, 1236-37. To obtain an award of exemplary or punitive damages under La. C.C. art. 2315.3, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant’s conduct was wanton and reckless by proving that “the defendant proceeded in disregard of a high and excessive degree of danger, either known to him or apparent to a reasonable person in his position,” or that the defendant engaged in “highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent;” (2) that the danger created by the defendant’s wanton or reckless conduct threatened or endangered public safety; (3) that the defendant’s wanton or reckless conduct- occurred in the storage, handling or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances; and (4) that the plaintiffs injury was caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless conduct. Id.; Billiot v. B.P. Oil, Co., 93-1118, pp. 16-17 (La.9/29/94), 645 So.2d 604, 613.

|10As set forth in our prior opinion, our review of the record disclosed sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Exxon had engaged in wanton and reckless conduct. Exxon first learned of NORM contamination in oilfield drilling equipment in 1981, when Occidental Petroleum, another oil company, discovered it on its platforms in the North Sea. At that time, Dr. Andrew Lloyd Smith, a Scottish environmental consultant, was working for Occidental Petroleum in the U.K., and following the discovery, was a member of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) Safety Committee that drafted and published the UKOOA safety guidelines and Reference Manual that were given to all oil companies operating in the North Sea. ITCO offered Dr. Smith as a health and safety expert witness at trial. According to Dr. Smith, the reference manual was extensive and covered both the identification of radioactive scale and the procedure to follow up on such identification. The guidelines, promulgated by the oil and gas industry and approved by the U.K’s National Radiological Protection Board (“NRPB”), recommended the specific steps to minimize or eliminate the effect of NORM on public health and the environment.

Though Exxon was abreast of the problem, it took no action to survey its wells elsewhere. The depositions of Mr. John Rullman, Director of Exxon’s Eastern Division Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, and of Mr. Everett C. Hutchinson, Exxon’s Assistant Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, were introduced into evidence and read to the jury at trial. Mr. Rullman testified that he had obtained a copy of the UKOOA safety guidelines and found they were very onerous, restrictive, and inflexible. He also admitted that he was not sure if at that time Exxon had the same problem in the U.S. Mr. Hutchinson, too, believed l^the UKOOA guidelines were unreasonable for Exxon’s production operations in the U.S. Mr. Booher, Exxon’s industrial hygienist, admitted that if Exxon had surveyed its wells prior to the Chevron discovery in the U.S. in 1986, then it would have discovered radium in its wellheads much sooner.

In May 1986, after learning of Chevron’s NORM discovery in Mississippi, Exxon surveyed its Mississippi well sites and found radiation accumulation in its equipment. Twice Exxon officials were notified that the cleaning contractors had to be informed of the radioactivity, as it posed a health and safety hazard, but they still did nothing to warn them.

The evidence further disclosed that by August 1986 Exxon was clearly worried about governmental regulation and losing the produced water exemption, which allowed it to dispose of the by-product in an unregulated manner. A memo written on August 28, 1986, by Mr. Howard Collier, Exxon’s director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, stated, “Chevron has taken a very high profile approach to handling their discovery of radiation in Mississippi and many agencies are now involved.” Mr. Collier expressed an interest in “[getting] the industry and the regulatory agencies to slow down.” Then he admitted,

Chevron’s discovery is nothing new. After all, if there wasn’t some radiation in down-hole formations, it would be difficult to run a gamma ray log. My primary concern is the current investigation and analysis not unduly influence the EPA who is in the process of deciding under RCRA [Resource Conservation Recovery Act] whether produced water should be classified as a hazardous waste and handled as such.

Mr. Booher’s notes taken from comments made by Mr. Collier at an Exxon NORM meeting in Houston on January 8, 1987, indicate the cost of losing the RCRA | ^exemption for produced water as $750 million in the first year and $150 million for each year thereafter. At that same meeting, several Exxon officials concluded that notifying the cleaning contractors would be “premature.”

The evidence also disclosed that Exxon was concerned about litigation arising from the NORM discovery in Mississippi. Street, Inc., a pipe yard company in Mississippi, had filed suit against Chevron and other oil companies (not Exxon), for $35 million, claiming negligence for failure to advise that pipe delivered to it was contaminated with radioactive material. Mr. Hutchinson, in an internal memo copied to Mr. Rullman, recognized the possible “need to manage the disposal of large accumulations of contaminated scale, such as could occur at a pipe yard.” Mr. Rullman, in a confidential memo dated October 14, 1986, noted ITCO was a potential “look alike” to Street, Inc., and stated, “If potential exists for radioactive material accumulation, perform low key radiation exposure measurements;” “Coordinate ITCO plan with Eastern Division;” and “Consider advisory letter to ITCO with Headquarters involvement.” Still, Exxon did nothing to notify ITCO.

Eventually, Exxon sent the letter notifying the cleaning contractors of the NORM problem in March 1987, ten months after it had identified the problem at its domestic well sites. On March 27, 1987, Exxon representatives met with Mr. John Hooper, president of ITCO, and other ITCO employees and gave them a video and a set of procedural guidelines to follow when handling NORM contaminated equipment. According to Mr. Hooper, Exxon’s videotape made the health risks associated with NORM scale sound minor and the safety procedure guidelines merely suggested taking precautions to avoid breathing or ingesting airborne dust. At that time, Exxon’s representatives made no mention of the likely 1 ^buildup of radioactive scale on ITCO’s premises even though Exxon knew the pipe scale had been accumulating on the premises for years and had learned in June 1986 that it was hazardous.

Exxon maintained that no reasonable juror could have concluded that it knew about the NORM buildup in domestic oil production tubing before 1986. We disagreed. Although the 1981 discovery of NORM inside drilling equipment was limited to the North Sea area, by that time Exxon already knew that Shell Oil had found radioactive material in equipment at a refinery in the U.K. The jury could have concluded that Exxon knew or should have known of the likelihood of NORM contamination in domestic oilfield production equipment well before Chevron’s Mississippi discovery in 1986 based on Exxon’s knowledge that radioactive material had been found in both drilling and refining equipment in the North Sea region coupled with the fact that just a few years earlier Exxon had discovered radioactive deposits inside equipment at several Texas gas plants. Also, in view of Mr. Collier’s August 28, 1986 memo, stating, “Chevron’s discovery is nothing new,” the jury reasonably could have concluded that Exxon knew about the NORM deposits in its domestic oilfield equipment before 1986, and its failure to act sooner was wanton and reckless.

Exxon argued, too, that it acted to protect the public safety after Chevron’s 1986 NORM discovery. Exxon emphasized that after the discovery it had conducted a nationwide NORM survey of all its facilities; it began screening used tubing for NORM at production sites and the contaminated tubing was stored — not cleaned; it began to screen tubing at central storage facilities like ITCO; it recommended safety procedures; and it began to develop a new cleaning process 114that would allow for the previously-stockpiled, NORM contaminated pipe to be cleaned safely.

We found no merit to Exxon’s argument. Clearly, the evidence indicated that the action taken by Exxon after the Chevron discovery was to benefit Exxon, not the general public. As a result of the discovery, Exxon was faced with unprecedented environmental, legal, economic, and financial challenges. It had no choice but to act. In any event, we found Exxon’s most egregious act was failing to notify ITCO of the NORM hazard immediately after it tested the Exxon Mississippi wells and discovered NORM at the well sites. Although Exxon’s representatives claimed that to notify the cleaning contractors immediately would have been “premature” until they knew the extent of the problem and they did not want to “alarm” the public, we concluded that their failure to do so was inexcusable. Exxon executives had been warned that NORM posed a human safety hazard to anyone exposed to it, but they waited nine months to send the warning letter to the contractors and to meet with ITCO. Exxon’s delay in notifying ITCO of the danger was wanton and reckless.

Upholding the jury’s finding that punitive damages were warranted in this case, we then considered whether the jury’s one billion dollar award was constitutional.

Constitutionality of Punitive Damage Award

Exxon had assigned as error in the first appeal that the $1 billion punitive damage award was unconstitutional as it violated Exxon’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.

11RIn recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered several cases raising exemplary damage issues. In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996), the Court ruled that exemplary damage awards that are “grossly excessive” violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court then provided three “guideposts” for gauging when an exemplary damage award crosses the constitutional line: (1) the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the ratio between the exemplary damage award and the harm the defendant’s conduct caused, or could have caused; and (3) the size of any civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.

The constitutional constraints on the amount of exemplary awards were again considered in Cooper Industries, Inc., supra, 532 U.S. 424, 121 S.Ct. 1678, wherein the Court ruled that state and federal appellate courts must conduct a de novo review of exemplary damage awards challenged as being grossly excessive under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 433-434, 121 S.Ct. at 1685-1686. In mandating a de novo review, the Court reasoned that “[ujnlike the measure of actual damages suffered, which presents a question of historical or predictive fact, the level of punitive damages is not really a ‘fact’ ‘tried’ by the jury.” Id. at 437, 121 S.Ct. at 1686.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003), the Court further tightened the permissible limits of exemplary awards, holding that appellate “courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable ánd proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered.” Id., 538 U.S. at 426, 123 S.Ct. at 1524.

|1fiKeeping in mind the principles outlined in BMW of North America, Inc., v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile, Insurance Company v. Campbell, we conducted a de novo review of the jury’s exemplary damage award. -Our findings as a result of that de novo review were set forth in our prior opinion and read as follows.

“[T]he most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is' the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” Gore, supra, at 575, 116 S.Ct. 1589. In determining the reprehensibility of a defendant, courts are instructed to consider whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. 517 U.S. at 576-577, 116 S.Ct. 1589. The existence of any one of these factors weighing in favor of a plaintiff may not be sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award; and the absence of all of them renders any award suspect. It should be presumed a plaintiff has been made whole for his injuries by compensatory damages, so punitive damages should be awarded only if the defendant’s culpability, after having paid compensatory damages, is so reprehensible as to warrant the imposition of further sanctions to achieve punishment or deterrence. Id. at 575,116 S.Ct. at 1589.
In this case, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs suffered strictly economic harm, i.e., property damage. While Exxon’s conduct resulted in no physical harm to them, it certainly evinced an indifference to or reckless disregard of the health and safety of others. As stated above, Exxon’s nine-month delay in notifying ITCO and the other cleaning contractors of the dangers posed from handling NORM contaminated equipment certainly put their employees at risk. Even though ITCO no longer cleaned NORM contaminated piping/tu-bulars after March 1987, Exxon was well aware that NORM contaminated equipment remained stockpiled on ITCO’s property. This posed a health hazard to those on the premises.
We also find that the target of the conduct was financially vulnerable. ITCO had leased the property from the Grefer family for many years and during that period operated a very successful business cleaning oilfield equipment. After Exxon discovered the NORM contamination in its drilling equipment and finally realized the extent of the problem, the oil company sought to wipe its hands clean and leave ITCO with the mess. Notably, on April 19, 1989, Mr. Rullman sent a memo to Mr. Roger Koerner, Exxon’s top manager for the 117E astern Division, regarding “ITCO Contract Recommendations.” The memo stated in part:
RAE [Exxon’s Regulatory Affairs Engineering] concurs with the suggestion to screen other contractors to ascertain their abilities to decontaminate NORM material, ... The development of alternative cleaning/disposal options would help soften their stance [on contract negotiations] and may be needed anyway if the ITCO procedure does not provide sufficient cleaning. The continued use of the ITCO yard could complicate any potential personal injury liability claims since it would be difficult to determine when the exposure occurred that caused the injury. Resuming cleaning with a new contractor would clearly establish the earliest date of potential exposure, and Exxon could better contractually minimize its exposure with the new contractor. This would not, however, help Exxon with any claims from past activities at ITCO.

Shortly thereafter, ITCO’s business steadily declined while Exxon sent its used oilfield equipment to new cleaning contractors. After ITCO ceased operations, terminated its lease and vacated the premises, Exxon’s NORM scale remained on the premises. In addition to ITCO’s failure, the Grefers are now financially burdened with the task of remediating the property.

Furthermore, we find Exxon’s repeated conduct from 1985 through 1992, when ITCO finally shut down, did involve an element of deceit. Again, as mentioned above, from June 1986 to March 1987 Exxon officials intentionally withheld information regarding NORM contamination in the piping/tubulars even though they knew the scale posed a direct danger to the physical health and safety of those workers who continued to handle the NORM contaminated equipment on a daily basis. Also, after learning of the danger posed by the NORM contaminated scale, Exxon took no step to remove the radioactive material from ITCO’s premises. In our opinion, Exxon’s conduct was reprehensible.

Next we consider the second Gore guideline, the disparity between actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damage award. For potential harm properly to enter into the ratio, it must be directly attributable to the misconduct and not to lawful or unrelated causes. See Cooper Industries, 532 U.S. at 441, 121 S.Ct. at 1688.

In Campbell, the Utah Supreme Court justified a punitive award of $145 million in a case in which the plaintiff was awarded $1 |1smillion in compensatory damages for State Farm’s bad-faith failure to settle, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the award under the Gore guideposts and concluded that the award was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was an irrational and arbitrary deprivation of the property of the defendant. Campbell, 538 U.S. at 429, 123 S.Ct. at 1526. While the Court declined to impose a bright-line ratio which punitive damages cannot exceed, it noted that its jurisprudence and the principles set forth therein demonstrate that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process. The Court recognized that although “there are no rigid benchmarks,” a higher ratio could be justified only if “a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.” Id., 538 U.S. at 425, 123 S.Ct. at 1524. The Court also noted that the converse is true, “[w]hen compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee.” Id. The Court found the compensatory award of $1 million was “substantial,” and concluded that the Gore guideposts “would [only] justify a punitive damages award at or near the amount of compensatory damages.” Id., 538 U.S. at 429, 123 S.Ct. at 1526. The Court also rejected the Utah Supreme Court’s reference to State Farm’s enormous wealth to justify the award, stating, “[t]he wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award.” Id., 538 U.S. at 427, 123 S.Ct. at 1525.

This case leaves little doubt that there is a presumption against an award that has an 18 to 1 ratio. In our opinion, the compensatory award in this case was substantial; the Grefers were awarded $56,145,000.00 for a piece of property worth at most $1,500,000.00. Although the plaintiffs claimed only property damage, and no physical harm, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to argue and present substantial evidence, over Exxon’s objections, of the potential and/or alleged actual harm to other persons who were not parties to this suit and whose claims were not before the jury. For example, in their opening statement, the plaintiffs’ counsel referred to the “community” and “churches immediately next to” the Grefer property. He described radium particles in “a very, very, very fine powder” being blown “all over the place.” A video was shown to the jury that depicted elementary school children getting on and off a bus. Witnesses were then asked questions designed to foment the fear of a radium dust cloud blowing over houses, churches, and schools near the Grefer property. The trial court also allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to question witnesses about the potential harm of radiation to children and unborn children even though this case is strictly a claim for damage to immovable property. Likewise, the trial court allowed plaintiff, Rose Grefer Haase, a former nurse, to testify regarding the effects of x-ray radiation and the protections taken by those working with x-ray machines to avoid personal injury. The trial ended with a ^neighbor, Ms. Thelma Benjamin, testifying on rebuttal about the DEQ and Exxon failing to test her property or the property of others in the neighborhood. Plaintiffs’ counsel likened the harm suffered by the Grefers with damages caused in the 1989 EXXON-VALDEZ oil spill. Much of this evidence was irrelevant and, more than likely, confused the jury, contributing to its exorbitant punitive damage award, (footnote omitted)

The plaintiffs also put on substantial evidence regarding Exxon’s wealth. The jury heard that Exxon is the largest corporation in the world and had assets of $251 billion; that its revenue for the year 2000 was $228.439 billion; and that its total net worth in 2000 was $173 billion. In addition, evidence was presented of the salaries, bonuses, stock options, etc., of Exxon’s corporate executives. The jury heard that the only way to punish a big corporation like Exxon for its reprehensible behavior was to hit its bank account. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that Exxon could satisfy a large punitive judgment in very little time with the interest that accrues on its $72 billion in shareholders’ equity and that it likely would never feel the effect of the judgment because it would be passed on to the consumers at the gas pumps. Counsel also pointed out that Exxon recently had been cast in judgment for several other large punitive damage awards, including a case in which an Alabama jury awarded the plaintiffs punitive damages of $3.4 billion and compensatory damages of $87 million. Such assertions bore no relationship to the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Although the jury could consider Exxon’s wealth, the company’s wealth could not provide an open-ended basis for inflating the punitive award. With this in mind, we find the $1 billion dollar punitive damage award is neither reasonable nor proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiffs and to the general damages recovered. Considering the substantial compensatory damages awarded in this case, in our opinion a lesser single-digit ratio would be appropriate.

The third guidepost in Gore is the disparity between the punitive damages awarded and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. The Court in Campbell noted that criminal penalties may also be considered, as the existence of a criminal penalty does have bearing on the seriousness with which a State views the wrongful action. Campbell, 538 U.S. at 428, 123 S.Ct. at 1526. When used to determine the dollar amount of the award, however, the criminal penalty has less utility. Id. Great care must be taken to avoid use of the civil process to assess criminal penalties that can be imposed only after the heightened protections of a criminal trial have been observed, including, its higher standard of proof. Id. Punitive damages are not a substitute for the criminal process, and the remote possibility of a criminal sanction does not automatically justify a punitive award. Id.

Exxon argues that it did not violate any state laws or regulations because the DEQ did not establish NORM regulations until 1989 (footnote omitted) and therefore the punitive damage award is not Unwarranted. It also argues that the maximum civil penalty under Louisiana law for willful conduct would not exceed $1,000,000.00, and thus if punitive damages are imposed, the amount should not exceed $1,000,000.00.

In the case of In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation, 2000-0479, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir 6/27/01), 795 So.2d 364 (hereinafter “CSX"), we affirmed the trial court’s reduction of a jury’s punitive damage award from $2.5 billion to $850 million. That case involved personal injury claims by 8,047 class members for injuries arising out of a burning train car carrying a hazardous substance. In reaching our result, we recognized the large number of claimants, their personal injury, the potential that many city blocks could have been destroyed by an explosion, and the evacuation of thousands during the night because of the danger posed by burning chemicals. Like Exxon, the defendant argued in CSX that because the maximum civil penalty under Louisiana law for its violation was slightly more than $1,000,000.00 that should have been the amount of the jury’s punitive award. We disagreed, noting that “the BMW Court did not select and use the term ‘guideposts’ without reason”, and that term does not “connote or suggest a cumulative series of three ‘tests’ or ‘elements’ which must be met.” CSX at p. 33, 795 So.2d at 386. We then specifically rejected the notion “that the third guide ... ‘caps’ punitive damages.” Id. at p. 33, 795 So.2d at 386-87.

The plaintiffs point to various criminal fines for violations of Louisiana statutes and regulations and give examples in which fines of tens of thousands of dollars a day would be imposed every day for the years Exxon was in violation of the law. Notably, in Cooper, the Court rejected an effort, similar to the plaintiffs’ here, to suggest that the maximum fine provided by an Oregon statute would have been imposed each time a piece of promotional literature was distributed, 532 U.S. at 442-43, 121 S.Ct. at 1689, while in Campbell the Court rejected an attempt to justify a large award based on speculation about whether, in a criminal prosecution, the defendant might have lost its business, license, been imprisoned, or been required to disgorge all profits.

The fact that Louisiana had no regulations governing NORM until 1989 does not excuse Exxon’s reprehensible action. And Louisiana’s maximum civil penalty for willful misconduct, alone, cannot limit a punitive damage award. Nonetheless, based on our review of the record, we find that $1 billion punitive award in this case is exorbitant and must be reduced.

In summary, we find that an application of the Gore guideposts to the facts of this case, especially in light of the substantial compensatory damages awarded, likely would justify a punitive damages award closer to the amount of compensatory damages. The punitive damage award of $1 billion, therefore, was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was an irrational and arbitrary deprivation of Exxon’s property. Therefore, we will amend the jury’s award to reduce it to an amount that we have determined is | ⅞1 both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm suffered by the Grefers and to the general damages of $56,145,000.00, which is $112,290,000.00 or twice the general damage award.

Grefer, supra, 2002-1237 at p. 46-53, 901 So.2d at 1148-1152.

Clearly, as noted above, the conduct of Exxon satisfied the wanton and reckless requirement, ie. it was reprehensible. Any reference to harm suffered by nonparties, which Exxon finds objectionable, was used in the foregoing discussion merely to demonstrate the reprehensibility of Exxon’s conduct and nowhere in the opinion do we use any evidence of harm suffered by nonparties as the basis to award an amount for exemplary damages to the Grefers. Again, any discussion of harm to nonparties was done simply to show reprehensibility. The record amply supports the finding that Exxon’s conduct was reprehensible.

Second, our opinion takes into account all of the objections and concerns raised by Exxon herein in light of Philip Morris. We noted those objections and essentially sustained them in our review. We find that many of the improper arguments and evidence contributed to the verdict which in no way reflected the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and the compensatory damages which were awarded.

Third, our de novo review resulted in a drastic reduction of the jury’s $1 billion punitive damage award. In reviewing the matter de novo, we disregarded the evidence of and references to harm suffered by nonparties and considered only the harm done to the Grefers in determining the amount of the punitive damage award.

Fourth, although our de novo review essentially awards exemplary damages based on the State Farm, multiplier and the compensatory award, we still consider the reprehensibility of Exxon’s conduct as well as the degree of reprehensibility in li>;.our award of exemplary damages. Additionally, the punitive damage award rightfully takes into account the fact that Exxon should be punished for its reprehensible conduct and deterred from repeating it. The fact that Exxon is one of the wealthiest companies in the world was another factor that we properly considered.

Summary

In this opinion we elaborate and expand on the thought process that went into our earlier opinion. But after reviewing this record and the Philip Morris decision, we stand by our initial decree with regard to the award of exemplary damages.

We interpret the remand from the U.S. Supreme Court to affect our decision as it relates to the exemplary damages and it is our opinion that the decision in no way mandated that we review the remaining assignments of error urged by Exxon and that it in no way affects our initial decision with regard to the compensatory award. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court remand and the Philip Morris decision do not mandate that we order a new trial but instead allow us to correct any procedural and or substantive errors by our constitutionally delegated authority of de novo review. This court is constitutionally allowed to review both law and facts. La. Const, art. V, § 10(B).

As a final thought on the issues of reprehensibility and harm to the plaintiff, we note that during the oral argument, Exxon’s attorney suggested that with regard to harm to nonparties, when considering reprehensibility, the' trier of fact can only consider the harm to nonparties that is similar to the harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff. That analysis is not supported by Philip Morris, State Farm, or BMW.

[2jjln determining the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct for the purpose of awarding exemplary damages, the trier of fact may consider the harm suffered by both parties and nonparties regardless of the type or similarity of harm suffered as a result of that conduct. On the other hand, the trier of fact may consider the nature and extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff only in determining the amount of exemplary damages to award that particular plaintiff.

Finally, Exxon cites the decision in Embry v. Geo Transportation of Indiana, Inc., 478 F.Supp.2d 914 (E.D.Ky.2007), arguing that the punitive damage award cannot stand in this case because Exxon’s delay in warning persons of the NORM danger did not cause the plaintiffs property damage but rather only potential harm to nonparties.

In Embry, the defendant’s truck crossed the median into oncoming traffic and caused multiple deaths and injuries. The defendant truck driver admitted that after taking a sip of coffee he choked and lost control of the truck, causing the accident. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant truck driver had fraudulently concealed his negative medical history on his job application, including that he was a recovering alcoholic, and alleged on this basis that the defendants were liable for punitive damages. Citing Philip Morris, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ punitive damage claims explaining that none of the alleged fraudulent acts or omission proximately caused the plaintiffs’ damages and, therefore, did not satisfy the “constitutional nexus requirement.” Id. at 924.

The Embry case is distinguishable from the ease before us. The court clearly recognized that the defendant truck driver’s failure to disclose his medical history | g4in applying for his job and commercial driver’s license several years earlier did not cause the accident. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it was foreseeable from the fraudulently concealed medical information that the defendant would choke on coffee while driving, so as to establish that the fraud was a proximate cause of the accident. Here, we found that Exxon’s failure to disclose the NORM hazard to ITCO in a timely manner demonstrated the reprehensibility of its conduct, a factor we could consider in awarding exemplary damages to the Grefers. Although Exxon’s delay in disclosing the NORM hazard did not cause the Grefers physical harm, it increased their economic damages by allowing the continual accumulation of NORM scale on their property.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the trial court rendered in accord with the jury verdict in favor of the Grefers is amended, in part, to reduce the $ 1 billion award for punitive damages to $112,290,000.00 to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Furthermore, the trial court judgment denying Exxon’s exception of prescription is affirmed.

AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.

      . Exxon Mobil Corporation, v. Grefer, 549 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1371, 167 L.Ed.2d 156 (2007).

      . The immovable property at issue was part of a larger tract of land purchased by the plaintiffs' great grandfather in 1875 and since then has remained in the Grefer family. The plaintiffs acquired the naked ownership of three-fourths (3/4ths) of the immovable property in February 1945 upon the death of their father, Archibald J. Grefer, Sr., and full ownership of the entire tract in March 1996 upon the death of their mother, Camille Claire Antoine Gre-fer.

      . La. C.C. art. 2315.3 was originally enacted as La. C.C. art. 2315.1 by Acts 1984, No. 335, § 1. It was redesignated as Article 2315.3 under the authority of the Louisiana State Law Institute in 1986. It was repealed by Acts 1996, 1st Ex.Sess., No. 2, § 1, effective April 16, 1996. Article 2315.3 had provided:
      In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded, if it is proved that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances. As used in this Article, the term hazardous or toxic substances shall not include electricity.

        . Grefer v. Alpha Technical, 2005-1590, 2005-1259 (La.3/31/06), 925 So.2d 1248.

      . For ease of reference, we have numbered the paragraphs in the jury instructions.

      . "NORM” is the acronym for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material.

      . On April 10, 1986, Chevron identified radium-266 in oil filed equipment at a well site in Brookhaven, Mississippi.

      . Punitive damages are available under Kentucky law if a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. Ky.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.184(2) (West 2006).