author: WARNER, J.

text:
    Mayuris DISLA, Appellant, v. Joseph BLANCO, Appellee.
    No. 4D11-2556.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 27, 2013.

      Andrew A. Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Jason D. Weisser of Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser & Zoeller, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Daniel J. Santaniello and Doreen E. Lasch of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   On Motion for Rehearing

WARNER, J.

We deny appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion, and substitute the following in its place.

Mayuris Disla appeals a final judgment in her claim for injuries she suffered as a passenger in an auto accident, in which the jury found her to be 90% negligent for failing to wear a seatbelt and awarded her substantially less in medical expenses than she claimed. She raises multiple issues of trial court error, including: 1) error in denying a challenge for cause and in eon-ducting a Melbourne challenge in jury selection; 2) abuse of discretion in permitting admission of irrelevant matters on cross-examination of plaintiffs treating physician; 3) abuse of discretion in allowing presentation of undisclosed opinions by a defense expert; 4) abuse of discretion in preventing impeachment of the defense seatbelt expert by comparing the plaintiffs injuries to the defendant’s injuries; and 5) abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s medical records from being admitted. We conclude that the issues either were not properly preserved for appeal or were not an abuse of discretion.

The accident giving rise to this incident occurred when defendant Joseph Blanco was driving plaintiff Disla home late one night. Blanco had a seizure and lost control of the vehicle, going over two curbs, swiping a tree, and running into a house. Disla suffered a broken neck in the accident. She had cervical fusion surgery on her neck. Later, her attorney referred her to a pain management specialist, who then referred her to a neurosurgeon for a second, larger fusion surgery. The three main issues at trial were: 1) whether the accident was the result of Blanco’s loss of consciousness due to his seizure, of which condition he was unaware, thus negating his negligence; 2) whether Disla was not wearing a seatbelt which significantly increased her injuries; and 3) the reasonable necessity and reasonable cost of Disla’s past and future treatment.

At trial, Disla presented her medical experts, and Blanco presented his experts, including a seatbelt expert; however, there was little disagreement as to what happened in the accident. The jury found both parties to be the legal cause of damage to Disla, but apportioned 90% of the fault to Disla and 10% to Blanco. The jury awarded $115,325 in past and $40,000 in future economic damages, as well as $25,000 in each past and future non-economic damages, for total damages of $205,325. After allocating the percentages of fault and reducing the amount by PIP benefits, the court entered judgment in favor of Disla for $10,532.50, plus costs.

Disla filed this appeal raising multiple issues. She first claims that the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to one juror and erred by failing to make a complete Melbourne analysis when the defense exercised a peremptory challenge to another juror, an African-American. As to the Melbourne challenge, this was not preserved, because counsel failed to renew his objection to the defense’s exercise of the peremptory challenge prior to the swearing of the jury. See Melbourne, 679 So.2d at 765.

As to the challenge for cause, we review the trial court’s discretionary decision regarding a challenge for cause for “manifest error.” Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 319 (Fla.2007). “The appellate court examines the record, keeping in mind that the trial court ‘has a unique vantage point in the determination of juror bias’ that is unavailable to us in the record.” Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 635-36 (Fla.1997)).

“ ‘The test for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the court.’ ” Id. at 318 (quoting Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1984)). “When a party seeks to strike a potential juror for cause, the trial court must allow the strike when ‘there is basis for any reasonable doubt’ that the juror had ‘that state of mind which w[ould] enable [the juror] to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at the trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 23-24 (Fla.1959)).

However, “[a] juror who initially expresses bias may be rehabilitated during the course of questioning. Nevertheless, doubts raised by initial statements are not necessarily dispelled simply because a juror later acquiesces and states that he [or she] can be fair.” Lewis v. State, 931 So.2d 1034, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Carratelli, 832 So.2d at 854). “To determine if a juror has dispelled all reasonable doubts about impartiality, a reviewing court must look at the entirety of the juror’s voir dire.” Id. (citing Scott v. State, 825 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). “If the juror declares and the court determines that the juror ‘can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence,’ a challenge for cause should not be granted.” Dorsey v. Reddy, 931 So.2d 259, 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (quoting Guzman v. State, 934 So.2d 11, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)).

In this case, the attorneys questioned the prospective jurors regarding seatbelt use. While discussing comparative negligence, Disla’s counsel asked whether any of the jurors felt that, if there was evidence that plaintiff was not wearing her seat belt, they “would automatically find that she was negligent.” The juror in question responded that she could follow the law but thought that someone not wearing a seatbelt would have to be negligent. She then clarified her response that she would follow the law, although in response to a further question she stated that, without hearing any evidence, she felt that someone who did not wear a seatbelt would be negligent to some degree, “but the percentage of it depends on what comes out at trial.” The attorney did not explain to the jury the distinction between negligence and evidence of negligence.

Defense counsel asked the juror: “in determining whether the seatbelt was used and whether it is the cause of the injury, will you listen to the evidence as opposed to just right now making a decision[?]” The juror readily admitted that she would and stated that she would “listen to the evidence to determine what role it plays in this case.” She explained, “What I said was if it is determined that the seat belt was not used, then I have to say that that was a contributing factor in the injuries.” She continued: “I’m saying if it is shown at trial that a seat belt was not used, then in my mind, that is a contributing factor in the injuries sustained. The amount, the percentage, depends on what the evidence is, what is introduced at trial.” She stated that she would “[mjost definitely” listen to the evidence and would be fair in that regard.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the challenge for cause. The juror’s opinion fairly accurately — at least in layperson’s terms — described the seatbelt defense, which treats the failure to use a seatbelt as an issue of comparative negligence and reduces damages by the percentage of negligence found by the jury. See Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934, 944 (Fla.1996) (when jury is considering whether plaintiff was negligent, jury should consider lack of seatbelt use as comparative negligence and calculate a percentage for comparative negligence which should be used to reduce total jury award). She stated that she would follow the law and would listen to the evidence presented. The distinction between treating the failure to use a seatbelt as evidence of negligence, rather than negligence itself, was left unexplained and is too fine a point of law for a lay person to grasp without explanation. There is competent substantial evidence that the juror could be fair and would listen to the evidence and follow the law.

This case is not like Algie v. Lennar Corporation, 969 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), in which a juror expressed a belief that, in all slip and fall cases, the person who fell was at least partially responsible for the fall and would bear some of the responsibility, regardless of the circumstances. Unlike Algie, the juror in this case simply expressed a view that follows the law. She prefaced the entire discussion by stating that she would follow the law. And she affirmed that she would listen to the evidence and her conclusion would be based on the evidence presented at trial. There is no manifest error in denying the challenge for cause.

In her next issue, Disla claims that the trial court erred in overruling objections to defense counsel cross-examining her neurosurgeon regarding his refusal to accept insurance, Medicare reimbursement rates, and his extensive practice in a type of surgery of disputed efficacy, which was not the surgery performed in this case. As to most of this cross-examination, counsel objected on the grounds of relevance and materiality. As to mentions of Medicare, counsel objected that it was injecting insurance into the ease.

A trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, and its rulings will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Jacobs v. State, 962 So.2d 934, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994)); Nardone v. State, 798 So.2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the defense to question the doctor on these subjects. The doctor had testified on direct to his extensive practice and qualifications, and the questions regarding the types of surgery he performed were relevant to that issue. The fact that he did not accept insurance was brought up in connection with the extent of the doctor’s extensive medical litigation practice. Finally, counsel did not object to the cross-examination with respect to Medicare rates, except on hearsay grounds to the document containing rates and codes, and his objection was sustained. Counsel did not object to the specific questions regarding the actual rates. Furthermore, the trial court sustained several of counsel’s objections, yet counsel never moved for a mistrial, thus failing to preserve those objections for appeal. See Durse v. Henn, 68 So.3d 271, 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Disla complains that Blanco’s expert on seatbelts was permitted to give an opinion he had not disclosed in his deposition, which she argued constituted an abuse of discretion, relying on Menard v. University Radiation Oncology Associates, LLP, 976 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to allow a party at trial to change ... the substance of testimony given in pretrial discovery.”). On the affirmative defense of failure to use a seatbelt, Blanco presented an expert on biomechanics who gave the opinion that Disla was not wearing her seatbelt, based upon her injuries and the biomechanics of the accident. Disla claims that the expert’s testimony amounted to a surprise opinion regarding the speed or range of delta forces in the accident, an opinion which he had not given in his deposition. While defense counsel sought to elicit this testimony on direct examination, the trial court sustained Disla’s objection. However, during cross-examination, Disla’s counsel asked the expert multiple questions regarding speed, to which the expert responded that his opinions were based upon a range of rates of change of speed, or delta-v’s. On redirect, defense counsel again asked the expert what his range of delta-v’s for the accident was, to which, the expert responded “15-18 miles per hour.” Disla’s counsel again objected, but the trial court overruled the objection on the ground that Disla’s cross-examination opened the door to the question and answer. We agree. Counsel’s cross-examination invited the answers given by the expert that his opinions were based upon a range of speed. Asking in rebuttal what that range was merely gave the jury a more complete answer to the questions asked on cross.

In addition, we fail to see how this was a change in opinion. At his deposition, the expert testified that he did not know the exact speed of the vehicle, but he did testify that the impact was not a minor one. At trial, he testified on direct that the impact was a moderate speed impact, which was thus consistent with his testimony in his deposition that the impact was not minor. His testimony to the range of speed on redirect at trial attempted only to explain, rather than change, his deposition testimony and his prior direct testimony.

Moreover, Disla did not establish how she was prejudiced by the introduction of this evidence. The speed of the vehicle or the change in delta forces was not a controverted issue at trial. The estimate of speed was relatively consistent with Disla’s own expert’s assumption in developing his opinion that, based upon a search of a national database, Disla could have received the same injuries even if she had been wearing her seatbelt. However, Dis-la apparently decided not to have her expert testify. For all these reasons, we conclude that the court did not reversibly err in its rulings, and no procedural prejudice has been shown.

To attempt to counter the expert’s testimony that Disla would not have suffered any serious injury had she been wearing her seatbelt, Disla attempted to cross-examine the expert by asking him about the injuries to Blanco, who was wearing his seatbelt in the crash. The trial court sustained the defense objection to the line of questioning on the ground that it was beyond the scope of direct examination, and the expert was not familiar with the injuries to Blanco.

Limitations on cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Poland v. Zaccheo, 82 So.3d 133, 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). It is unclear from the record exactly what Disla sought to prove in this exchange with the expert. No proffer was made of what injuries Blanco suffered or how they would impact the opinions of the expert. Without this, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing this line of questioning.

We need not dwell long on Disla’s claim that the trial court erred in disallowing entry of a medical record which would support her claim that Blanco knew about his seizure disorder. The court instructed the jury that it should find Blanco not negligent if he suffered a sudden loss of consciousness, but that Blanco could be negligent if he knew before the accident that he could suffer such a loss of consciousness. This finding was consistent with a recorded statement that Blanco had given to an insurance investigator after a prior accident, in which Blanco admitted to being concerned that the prior accident revealed a seizure disorder for which he would have to continue treatment. As the jury found Blanco negligent, it obviously also found that he had knowledge of his seizure disorder. Thus, reversal is not required where the verdict is consistent with the excluded evidence.

We find no merit in the remaining issues on appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the final judgment.

GROSS, J., and STONE, BARRY J., Senior Judge, concur.

      . Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996).

      . Although on appeal Disla argues that references to insurance and the like violated the collateral source rule, she did not make this argument at trial. Indeed, it was clear that Disla had no insurance and was liable for all charges to her doctors.

      . We are told in the initial brief that he didn’t testify because they ran out of time, but there is nothing in the record to support that statement. Apparently, counsel intended to read his deposition, as the court and counsel reviewed multiple objections made during the deposition. Nevertheless, the record contains no reading of the deposition or live testimony of the expert.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SHEPHERD, C.J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Serafin Garcia ARMAS, Appellant, v. BANCO NACIONAL DE CRÉDITO, C.A., etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D12-1826.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 27, 2013.

      Rivero Mestre and Andrés Rivero, M. Paula Aguila, Eduardo Ayala and Alan H. Rolnick, Miami, for appellant.
    Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, and Robert Zarco and Alejandro Brito, Miami, for appellee.
    Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and SUAREZ and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
   SHEPHERD, C.J.

In the case at bar (3D12-1826), the appellant seeks interlocutory review of the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130. The trial judge denied the defendant’s motion based on what is essentially a “non-reason,” namely that “both Armas and BNC have availed themselves of the jurisdiction of this court (Ar-mas being a resident of Miami-Dade County ...).” However, a finding of personal or subject matter jurisdiction in our courts is not a substitute for the existence of a “convenient forum.” See Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., SC11-1908, 123 So.3d 1085, 1091 (Fla. Jun. 20, 2013) (holding that inquiry as to whether long-arm jurisdiction exists over defendant “is an important statutory and constitutional hurdle for the plaintiff to overcome and one that would precede an attempt to dismiss [a] case based on the equitable, judge-made doctrine of forum non conveniens”) (emphasis added). Consequently, we reverse the order of the trial court. See Camperos v. Estrella, 3D12-1749, 126 So.3d 351, 351 2013 WL 1629255 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 17, 2013) (“A trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens is subject to reversal where, as here, there is neither (1) ‘meaningful analysis’ in the order, nor (2) a transcript reflecting adequate analysis of the Kinney factors, during the hearing itself....”) (citing ABA Capital Mkts. Corp. v. Provincial De Reaseguros C.A., 101 So.3d 385, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)).

During the course of this appeal, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of appellee, Banco Nacional De Crédito, presently on appeal in this court under Case No. 3D13-2113. Although the filing of a notice of interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay or have any preclusive effect on the continuation of proceedings in that court pending disposition of the interlocutory appeal, a trial court may not take any action which operates to legally impair or interfere with the power of the appellate court to effectuate its jurisdiction over and adjudicate the interlocutory appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f) (trial court may not render final order disposing of cause pending resolution of a non-final order); Willey v. W.J. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446, 105 So. 126, 129 (1925) (“When the appellate court acquires jurisdiction of a cause, no order of the trial court can legally impair or interfere with the power of the appellate court to make its jurisdiction in the premises effective.... Should an interlocutory order appealed from be reversed, the decree and mandates of the appellate court is effectual to restore the dismissed case to the docket of the trial court.”). Therefore, the Court reverses the order granting summary judgment in Case No. 3D13-2113 sua sponte.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings in compliance with this opinion.


author: TAYLOR, J.

text:
    Ivana Vidovic MLINAR, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Pak Mail of Wellington, Inc., Recovery Management Corp. d/b/a Cargo Largo and Aaron Anderson, Appellees.
    No. 4D12-1332.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 4, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 2013.

      Jack Scarola and Mara R.P. Hatfield of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Ship-ley, P.A., and Shannon M. Mahoney of Law Offices of Shannon Mahoney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Evan S. Gutwein and David R. Heifer-nan of Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, for appellee United Parcel Service, Inc.
   On Motion for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, and Certification to the Florida Supreme Court

TAYLOR, J.

Appellant has moved for rehearing, rehearing en banc, and certification of conflict. We deny the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc, but grant the motion for certification of conflict. We withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Ivana Vidovic Mlinar appeals a final order dismissing all of her claims against UPS on the ground that the claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment. We affirm.

Factual Background

Appellant is an artist who created two valuable oil paintings: Ad,vice and The Messenger. Her husband took the paintings to Pak Mail, a third party retailer, to be shipped via UPS to New York. When the container arrived at its intended destination in New York, it was empty. The duct tape had been sliced and the paintings had been removed. Appellant reported the loss to UPS and Pak Mail. Months later, Pak Mail offered her $100 for the missing contents of the package.

At some point, UPS sold the paintings to Cargo Largo, UPS’s lost goods contractor. Cargo Largo later auctioned the paintings. An individual named Aaron Anderson purchased one of the paintings at the Cargo Largo auction.

About two years after appellant lost possession of the paintings, she received a telephone call from Anderson, who informed her that he had just purchased Ad,vice at the Cargo Largo auction sale. Anderson inquired into the value of the painting, and she informed him that it had been appraised to be worth $20,000. He also informed her that The Messenger was auctioned in the same lot, but that he did not know the identity of the purchaser.

Anderson placed a listing online offering to sell Advice and even offering to introduce the buyer to appellant. He eventually acquired The Messenger as well. He then placed advertisements online in which he offered to sell or trade both paintings, and again offered to introduce the buyer to appellant.

Based on the above facts, appellant filed suit against UPS, Pak Mail, Cargo Largo, and Anderson. According to the operative complaint, UPS selectively located the contents of her container “based on their nature, probable worth, and lack of insurance,” and then sold the paintings to Cargo Largo for “some as of yet undiscovered consideration.” UPS also utilized appellant’s contact information on the back of each painting “to catalogue, sell and/or distribute” the paintings to Cargo Largo.

Appellant asserted four claims in her complaint: Conversion (Count I — against UPS, Cargo Largo, and Pak Mail), Profiting by Criminal Activity (Count II— against UPS, Cargo Largo, and Pak Mail), Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likeness (Count III — against UPS, Cargo Largo, and Anderson), and a claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count IV — against UPS).

The trial court dismissed all of appellant’s claims against UPS, ruling that they were preempted by the federal Carmack Amendment. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

The standard of review of a trial court’s order of dismissal is de novo. Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So.3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Law on Carmack Preemption

The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted in 1906 to establish a uniform national policy for interstate carriers’ liability for property loss. N.Y., N.H. & Hartford R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 131, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953). Under the Carmack Amendment, a carrier is generally liable for the actual loss or injury to the property. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1). However, a carrier may limit its liability to “a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper if that value would be reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 14706(c)(1).

Consistent with the goal of uniformity, the Carmack Amendment preempts state or common law remedies available to a shipper against a carrier for loss or damage to interstate shipments. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. Pinkerton Sec. Sys., Inc., 89 F.3d 452, 456 (7th Cir.1996). The Carmack Amendment’s preemptive scope supersedes all the regulations and policies of a particular state upon the same subject. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314 (1913). Carmack Amendment preemption embraces “all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty as to any part of the agreed transportation .... ” Ga., Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 196, 36 S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948 (1916). A cause of action not within the ambit of the preemptive scope of the Carmack Amendment is the rare exception. Brightstar Int’l Corp. v. Minuteman Int’l, 2011 WL 4686432 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 4, 2011).

As a general rule, the Carmack Amendment broadly preempts common law fraud, conversion, and unfair trade practices claims. See, e.g., Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that the Carmack Amendment preemption “applies equally to fraud and conversion claims arising from a carrier’s misrepresentations as to the conditions of delivery or failure to carry out delivery”); Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305, 306-07 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that the Carmack Amendment preempted various state law claims, including fraud, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, when a moving company failed to deliver household goods to a new home in time for Christmas); Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 282, 289 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that fraud “claims relating to the making of the contract for carriage are so closely related to the performance of the contract, arid the measure of damages for such claims so likely to be the loss or damage to the goods, that they are also preempted by the Carmack Amendment”); Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d 502, 506 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that Carmack Amendment preempted a shipper’s claim for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act); United Van Lines v. Shooster, 860 F.Supp. 826, 828-29 (S.D.Fla.1992) (finding that the Carmack Amendment preempted a claim based on an alleged fraudulent estimate made to induce a contract); see also Miracle of Life, LLC v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 368 F.Supp.2d 494, 498 (D.S.C.2005) (collecting cases).

Situations may exist, however, in which the Carmack Amendment does not preempt all state and common law claims. Smith v. United Parcel Serv., 296 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir.2002). Claims that are “based on conduct separate and distinct from the delivery, loss of, or damage to goods escape preemption.” Id. at 1249. For example, “no doubt exists that if a UPS driver intentionally assaulted and injured” a plaintiff, the Carmack Amendment would not preempt the cause of action. Id.

Other courts have applied a different test, ruling that preemption does not apply if “the shipper alleges injuries separate and apart from those resulting directly from the loss of shipped property.” See Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 382 (5th Cir.1998). Under this test, a claim alleging a harm independent from the loss or damage to the goods is not preempted by Carmack. See Braid Sales & Mktg., Inc. v. R & L Carriers, Inc., 838 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“Here, Braid’s claim of an alleged oral contract between the parties for payment of repairs, entered into after the shipment was completed, constitutes a separate harm which is independent from the loss or damage to goods. As such the claim is not preempted.”); Rini, 104 F.3d at 506 (“[A] claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress alleges a harm to the shipper that is independent from the loss or damage to goods and, as such, would not be preempted.”); Gordon, 130 F.3d at 289 (holding that claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was not preempted).

Analysis of Appellant’s Claims

We agree with the Eleventh Circuit that the proper test for whether claims escape Carmack preemption is whether the claims are based on conduct separate and distinct from the delivery, loss of, or damage to goods. “In other words, separate and distinct conduct rather than injury must exist for a claim to fall outside the preemptive scope of the Carmack Amendment.” Smith, 296 F.3d at 1249 (emphasis added).

Applying this standard, we conclude that all of appellant’s claims against UPS are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. First, we find that appellant’s claim against UPS for conversion is preempted because it is predicated upon UPS’s failure to deliver appellant’s goods. See Laing v. Cordi, 2012 WL 4792905 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 9, 2012) (“Plaintiffs’ claims for conversion and civil theft are predicated on Estes’ alleged failure to deliver plaintiffs’ goods. Although plaintiffs allege that Estes knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously appropriated and converted plaintiffs’ personal property, these contentions do not alter the fact that the claims are based on Estes’ alleged failure to deliver their personal property.”) (record citations omitted). We recognize that some courts allow an exception from preemption “when there has been a true conversion, i.e., where the carrier has appropriated the property for its own use or gain.” Glickfeld v. Howard Van Lines, 213 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir.1954). However, we decline to craft such an exception. Conversion is an intentional tort under Florida law. See, e.g., Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So.3d 1216, 1223 n. 4 (Fla.2010). We find that any distinction between “true” conversions and other conversions is unworkable in practice. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant’s conversion claim is preempted by the Car-mack Amendment even though it includes allegations of intentional conduct. To hold otherwise would undermine the Carmack Amendment’s goal of creating a uniform national policy on a carrier’s liability for property loss.

Second, we conclude that appellant’s claim against UPS for the unauthorized use of her name or likeness is preempted by the Carmack Amendment. Courts have held that even claims of slander or damage to reputation are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. See Moffit, 6 F.3d at 306-07 (holding that Carmack Amendment preempted all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including slander); Design X Mfg., Inc. v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 584 F.Supp.2d 464, 468 (D.Conn.2008) (holding that Carmack Amendment preempted furniture company’s claim against carrier for loss of business and reputation arising out of damaged desk delivered to one of the plaintiff’s customers; the “alleged loss to business and reputation flowed directly from the damage to the goods shipped in interstate commerce and the subsequent claims process”). Similarly, in this case we find that UPS’s alleged unauthorized use of appellant’s likeness in the resale of her paintings flowed directly from UPS’s course of conduct in failing to deliver the paintings. This claim is therefore preempted.

Finally, we hold that appellant’s claims against UPS in Counts II and IV are also preempted. These counts, which allege fraud and deceptive conduct relating to the formation of the shipping contract, are so closely related to the performance of the contract that they are preempted. See, e.g., Gordon, 130 F.3d at 289 (holding that fraud “claims relating to the making of the contract for carriage are so closely related to the performance of the contract, and the measure of damages for such claims so likely to be the loss or damage to the goods, that they are also preempted by the Carmack Amendment”); Schultz v. Auld, 848 F.Supp. 1497, 1503 (D.Idaho 1993) (“Decisions more recent than those on which Plaintiff relies have uniformly upheld the preemptive effect of the Car-mack Amendment and that the application of a state’s deceptive trade practices act is totally incongruous with the purposes of the Carmack Amendment.”).

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s final order of dismissal. To the extent this opinion conflicts with the Fifth District’s decision in Braid Sales, we certify conflict.

Affirmed; conflict certified.

CIKLIN, J., and ROBINSON, MICHAEL A., Associate Judge, concur.

      . While there are some cases holding that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt unfair trade practice claims, see Mesta v. Allied Van Lines Int’l, Inc., 695 F.Supp. 63 (D.Mass.1988); Sokhos v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 691 F.Supp. 1578 (D.Mass.1988); Brown v. Am. Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.1980), these cases are in the minority and two of them have been disapproved. See Rini, 104 F.3d 502, 506 n. 3 (1st Cir.1997) (“To the extent [Sokhos and Mesta ] are inconsistent with our holding, they do not represent the law of the circuit.’’).


author: DAVIS, Chief Judge.

text:
    Robert SHAKESPEARE, an individual, Appellant, v. William D. PRINCE, as Trustee of the Agnes A. Shakespeare Revocable Trust dated 12/8/89, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Agnes A. Shakespeare, and individually, Appellee.
    No. 2D12-4300.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Dec. 4, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 2014.

      Frederick C. Kramer of The Kramer Law Firm, P.A., Marco Island, for Appellant.
    Basil L. Bain of The Bain Law Firm, P.L., Naples, for Appellee.
   DAVIS, Chief Judge.

Robert Shakespeare challenges certain final judgments entered against him in favor of William Prince. Numerous judgments were entered for monetary damages on various counts, and one judgment was entered to provide the equitable relief of reformation of a deed for real property. Mr. Shakespeare specifically raises claims related to the reformation of the deed and the entry of the monetary judgments for the claims of tortious interference with an expectancy and breach of an antenuptial agreement. We affirm the judgment regarding the reformation of the deed without further comment, but because they are not supported by the record evidence, we must reverse the awards of damages on the claims for tortious interference and breach of an antenuptial agreement and remand for further proceedings.

Robert and Agnes Shakespeare married in 1985. The couple entered into an ante-nuptial agreement to maintain their assets separately. Mrs. Shakespeare had an adult child, William Prince, from a previous marriage. She also had inherited significant assets from another previous marriage. Following their marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Shakespeare purchased a home using a portion of Mrs. Shakespeare’s premarital assets. Subsequent to the purchase, the title to the home was transferred solely into Mrs. Shakespeare’s name. In 1989, she created a revocable trust, Mr. Shakespeare waived homestead rights, and the home became a trust asset. In 2007, Mr. Shakespeare prepared a quit claim deed transferring the house from the trust to him and his wife as a tenancy by the entireties. This deed was signed by Mrs. Shakespeare and her attorney, Joe Cox, in their capacities as cotrustees, and it was immediately recorded.

When Mr. Prince learned of the recorded deed, he met with Mrs. Shakespeare and Mr. Cox. Following the meeting, Mr. Cox prepared a letter to Mr. Shakespeare indicating that despite his discussion of the quit claim deed with Mrs. Shakespeare prior to her signing it, she did not understand the implications of the transfer of title and it was always her intent that Mr. Shakespeare’s interest in the house continue after her death as a life estate interest with a remainder going to Mr. Prince. Following Mrs. Shakespeare’s death, Mr. Prince, individually and in his capacities as trustee and personal representative of his mother’s estate, brought an action against Mr. Shakespeare.

In addition to the reformation of the deed and other judgments for monetary relief not at issue in this appeal, the jury awarded $150,000 to Mr. Prince as personal representative of the estate for the breach of the antenuptial agreement and $150,000 to Mr. Prince, individually, for the tortious interference with an expectancy. Both of these claims were related to Mr. Shakespeare’s role in Mrs. Shakespeare’s quit claim transfer of the property out of the trust and into a tenancy by the entireties with rights of survivorship.

On appeal, Mr. Shakespeare argues that these two awards are not supported by evidence on the record. We agree. See generally Pearce & Pearce, Inc. v. Kroh Bros. Dev. Co., 474 So.2d 369, 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“The general rule is that the extent of damages determined by a trial court is a question of fact which will be affirmed on appeal if supported by competent, substantial evidence.”).

Each of the $150,000 awards was based on the allegation in the complaint that Mr. Shakespeare exerted undue influence over Mrs. Shakespeare, causing her to transfer the trust’s entire interest in the property to him and thus preventing Mr. Prince from receiving the future interest in the property that his mother intended for him to receive upon her and Mr. Shakespeare’s deaths. The record indicates through expert testimony that the home was valued at approximately $1,000,000, but there was no evidence introduced to show the difference between the value of the life estate and the value of the future interest. Nor was there any testimony offered to show any other damages that Mr. Prince or the estate incurred as a result of Mr. Shakespeare’s actions, apart from the deprivation of Mr. Prince’s anticipated future interest in the property.

We conclude that the $1,000,000 value of the home alone is not a sufficient basis from which the jury could calculate the damages alleged by Mr. Prince in his complaint. Mr. Prince simply failed to produce evidence of the value of the remainder interest in the property. And although Mr. Prince responds that the two awards at issue were not necessarily based on the deprivation of his future interest in the property, he did not assert any other damages in his complaint or set forth arguments supporting any additional bases for such awards at trial.

Furthermore, in the count of the complaint for breach of the antenuptial agreement, it was alleged that Mrs. Shakespeare’s estate suffered damages due to the deprivation of the value of the home, and the jury awarded damages on that count to Mr. Prince only in his capacity as personal representative of his mother’s estate. But Mrs. Shakespeare specifically excluded the property from becoming an estate asset when she placed it in the trust for the benefit of Mr. Prince. As acknowledged by the complaint, the property was an asset of the trust prior to Mr. Shakespeare’s actions, and by the terms of the trust, the property would be distributed without becoming an asset of the estate. See generally Menendez v. Rodriguez, 106 Fla. 214, 143 So. 223, 225 (1932) (holding that when one spouse dies and the other spouse is the surviving owner of an estate by the entireties, the surviving spouse becomes “vested with the entire fee[ ] simple title to the property”).

Thus, while Mrs. Shakespeare’s removal of the property from the trust based on Mr. Shakespeare’s influence may have deprived the trust of an asset and Mr. Prince of an expectancy and may have been contrary to the intent of the antenuptial agreement, the estate had no expectation of an interest in the property and was not damaged by the signing of the quit claim deed. Therefore, the estate could never recover damages based on the value of the property as alleged in the complaint. We cannot reverse the finding of liability in favor of the estate on the breach of anten-uptual agreement because it is not before us as an issue on appeal, but we must reverse the unsupportable award of damages on that claim. Accordingly we remand for the entry of an award of zero damages on the judgment for breach of the antenuptial agreement.

With regard to the claim of tortious interference, for which damages were awarded to Mr. Prince individually, we must also agree with Mr. Shakespeare that the award is not supported by record evidence. Mr. Prince maintains that the amount is supported by the record because damages on this claim should be calculated using the value of the property as of the date of the interference — the date Mr. Shakespeare had Mrs. Shakespeare sign the quit claim deed — and that this was a value to be considered separately from the damages awarded by the reformation of the deed. Therefore, according to Mr. Prince, the $150,000 award is within the value of the property on the date the quit claim deed was signed and that value was presented at trial.

But assuming that damages are properly calculated as of the date of the tortious interference, Mr. Prince’s damage amount on that date could have only been for the value of the future interest, which is the value of the property minus the value of the life estate. As previously discussed, there was no evidence of this value placed before the jury for consideration. Furthermore, whatever the value of the future interest may be, Mr. Prince received that full value when the deed was reformed and he regained title to the future interest. Any collateral damages he may have incurred in the process of recovering his interest beyond the value of the future interest in the property itself were neither pleaded nor brought forth as evidence at trial. Therefore we also must reverse the damages award on the tortious interference. But unlike the underlying liability issue in the breach of antenuptial agreement claim, Mr. Prince, as an individual party, could recover any damages for the tortious interference claim if they are properly alleged and supported by the trial record. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a judgment for damages in any amount supported by the record and otherwise consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

BLACK and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

      . The reformation of the deed was entered in lieu of a $575,000 judgment for breach of fiduciary duty.

      . Even adding the two $150,000 awards together with the original $575,000 award on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, which was substituted by the reformation of the deed, does not equal the $1,000,000 value of the property. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that the difference between the total .value of the monetary damages awarded before the reformation of the deed and the value of property would be the value of the life estate Mr. Shakespeare received after the reformation of the deed.

      . Under the terms of the trust, upon Mrs. Shakespeare's death, Mr. Shakespeare would retain the right to continue to live at the property until his death, after which title would transfer to Mr. Prince.


author: WELLS, Judge. SALTER, J.

text:
    Chris TAYLOR, M.D., Appellant, v. Hilda Patricia GUTIERREZ, Appellee.
    No. 3D12-3045.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 4, 2013.

      Foreman Friedman and Darren W. Friedman, Miami, for appellant.
    Nicolas G. Sakellis, Tonya J. Meister and Michael F. Guilford, Miami, for appel-lee.
    Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and WELLS and SALTER, JJ.
   WELLS, Judge.

Chris Taylor, M.D., the defendant below, appeals from a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the trial court erred in determining that Dr. Taylor’s contacts with the State of Florida were sufficient to confer general jurisdiction over him under Florida’s long arm statute, section 48.193(2) of the Florida Statutes (2011), and because federal due process considerations were not met, we reverse.

On May 29, 2010, Hilda Patricia Gutierrez and her husband embarked on a seven night cruise aboard Royal Caribbean Cruise Line’s Oasis of the Seas. A couple of days into the cruise, Gutierrez visited the ship’s medical facility as it was approaching Labadee, Haiti, complaining of severe abdominal pain. She was seen by a ship’s nurse and Dr. Taylor, a shipboard physician. Dr. Taylor diagnosed and treated her for gastritis. Her condition worsened and, upon reaching port in Mexico, Gutierrez disembarked the ship and went to a Mexican hospital where she underwent abdominal surgery. There, she was allegedly treated for abdominal sepsis and multiple organ failures. She thereafter suffered a cerebral hemorrhage.

On May 27, 2011, Gutierrez filed the underlying negligence action against Dr. Taylor and Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court. With respect to personal jurisdiction, the complaint alleged, in relevant part, that the circuit court had general jurisdiction over Dr. Taylor — a British citizen who does not live in Florida, does not own real property in Florida and who is not licensed to practice in Florida — because of his “substantial and not isolated activity within the State of Florida,” as evidenced by his contacts with the State in connection with his career position as a shipboard physician for Florida-based cruise lines. No allegations were made in the Amended Complaint regarding any medical treatment performed by Dr. Taylor with respect to Gutierrez either in the State of Florida or within Florida territorial waters.

Dr. Taylor moved to quash service of process, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. He also participated in jurisdictional discovery — i.e., responding to jurisdictional interrogatories and attending a deposition via Skype. The matter then came before the lower court for hearing on October 9, 2012. Therein, the parties agreed that the court should defer ruling on the motion to quash service and focus solely on the two motions to dismiss.

On October 16, 2012, the court below entered the order on appeal. Therein, the court denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. That ruling is not the subject of this appeal. The court also denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that while specific jurisdiction did not exist over Dr. Taylor under Florida’s long arm statute, see section 48.193(1), it nevertheless had general jurisdiction over him under the following provision of the statute:

A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.

§ 48.193(2), Fla. Stat. (2011).

The court based its finding of general jurisdiction on the following contacts between Dr. Taylor and the State of Florida, all of which relate to his nine-year career as a shipboard doctor: entering into employment agreements in Florida with Florida-based cruise lines (Carnival Cruise Lines and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines); attending annual medical conferences in Florida and from time to time making presentations at same; receiving advanced cardiac life support recertification in Florida; vacationing from time to time in Florida; having two bank accounts in Florida; and working aboard a cruise ship that embarked/disembarked at a Florida port one day a week. In addition, because for all intents and purposes Dr. Taylor worked and resided exclusively on a cruise ship, the trial court felt compelled to relax both the stringent jurisdictional standard required under Florida’s long arm statute and the constitutional analysis set forth in the well-established case law in order to redress what it clearly deemed a nefarious scheme by Dr. Taylor to avoid being sued not only in a Florida court, but in any court:

This court is cognizant of the technology now available to people all over the world that enables them to conduct their life’s business without being “tethered” to a particular locale. For that reason, the court cannot simply rely on the standard “brick and mortar” factors in determining whether an individual has sufficient contacts in Florida to establish jurisdiction (e.g., physical location of office, home, etc.). In an age where people across the globe have access to fax machines, emails, cell phones, Skype and other advances, almost anyone could run a business from an igloo or a grass hut as long as they have satellite capabilities. For that reason, the courts should have a broader view of what constitutes a “connection” and not allow defendants to live their lives as nothing more than a shell game to thwart jurisdiction.

We review the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. See E & H Cruises, Ltd. v. Baker, 88 So.3d 291, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Setting aside the trial court’s opinion that Dr. Taylor has consciously engaged in a “shell game to thwart jurisdiction” — which is far from an established fact on this record — we find that none of the factors relied upon by the trial court, whether viewed individually or collectively, are sufficient to confer general jurisdiction over him. Indeed, contrary to the trial court’s expressed desire to employ a relaxed, “broader” view of general jurisdiction, it is well settled that “the requirement of continuous and systematic general business contacts establishes a ‘much higher threshold ’ than the ‘minimum contacts’ required to assert specific jurisdiction.” American Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson, 632 So.2d 1124, 1127-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (emphasis added) (quoting Reliance Steel Products Co. v. Watson, ESS, Marshall & Enggas, 675 F.2d 587, 589 (3d Cir.1982)); see also Biloki v. Majestic Greeting Card Co., Inc., 33 So.3d 815, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“General jurisdiction requires far more wide-ranging contacts with the forum state than specific jurisdiction, and it is thus more difficult to establish.” (quoting Canale v. Rubin, 20 So.3d 463, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); Elmlund v. Mottershead, 750 So.2d 736, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (recognizing that section 48.193(2) “requires a substantially heightened degree of Florida activity,” and finding no general jurisdiction over a shipboard physician who had “incidental, almost entirely personal contacts with this state between voyages”). The “continuous and systematic business contacts” required to confer general jurisdiction must be “ ‘extensive and pervasive, in that a significant portion of the defendant’s business operations or revenue [are] derived from established commercial relationships in the state.’” Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So.3d 245, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y. v. Ocean World, S.A., 12 So.3d 788, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)); Patterson, 632 So.2d at 1127-28. The facts alleged and established here simply fall short of these mandates.

Entering into an employment agreement in Florida, even an agreement that acknowledges Florida as the only place where disputes arising under the agreement may be entertained and which indemnifies the Florida “employer,” does not confer general jurisdiction over an individual. See Biloki, 33 So.3d at 821 (denying general jurisdiction where it was alleged, in part, that the defendant had signed several employment agreements in Florida, recognizing that there “needs to be more than a contractual relationship for general jurisdiction to apply”); Barnett v. Carnival Corp., No. 06-22521-CIV, 2007 WL 1526658, at *4 (S.D.Fla.2007) (finding that the forum selection clause contained in a shipboard doctor’s employment agreement did not confer general jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not a signatory to the agreement); Farrell v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 11-24399-CV, 2013 WL 178367, at *2 (S.D.Fla.2013) (finding no general jurisdiction where ship’s nurse had appointed cruise line “as her exclusive agent in Florida by way of their employment/indemnification agreements”).

Attending annual industry conferences in Florida and securing medical certifications issued by the State of Florida during those conferences also does not confer general jurisdiction. See E & H Cruises, Ltd., 88 So.3d at 294 (attending annual networking events and conventions in Florida found insufficient to confer general jurisdiction); Farrell, 2013 WL 178367, at *2 (obtaining medical education in Miami insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over shipboard nurse). This is particularly so in this case. As Dr. Taylor without contradiction confirmed, these conferences were conducted in Miami by the Miami-based cruise lines with which he contracted. While Dr. Taylor testified that he could have refused to attend these conferences or to speak at them, “it wouldn’t have been looked upon favorably” by the companies which contracted his services. Moreover, the conferences were geared to and attended primarily by cruise ship physicians and nurses, and importantly provided courses necessary to secure essential certifications. Specifically, Dr. Taylor testified that he took courses and training which allowed him to secure at least one of the certifications — the ACLS (advanced cardiac life support) certification — that was required for him to work aboard a cruise ship. As case law confirms, these activities did not confer general jurisdiction over Dr. Taylor.

Of course, vacationing in Florida is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a person. See Two Worlds United v. Zylstra, 46 So.3d 1175, 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that coming “to Florida only a few times a year to visit friends and family” was insufficient to satisfy section 48.193(2) and due process requirements); Radcliffe v. Gyves, 902 So.2d 968, 972 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), disapproved on other grounds, Kitroser v. Hurt, 85 So.3d 1084, 1089-90 (Fla.2012) (finding that “sporadic or occasional family vacations” to Florida are “insufficient” to establish general jurisdiction under Florida’s long arm statute). Similarly, having a Florida bank account is not enough. See Int'l Textile Grp., Inc. v. Interamericana Apparel Co., No. 08-22859-CIV, 2009 WL 4899404, at *2 (S.D.Fla.2009); E & H Cruises, Ltd., 88 So.3d at 294; La Reunion Française v. La Costeña, 818 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The testimony regarding Dr. Taylor’s two accounts at Bank of America was that in 2006, Bank of America representatives came on board the Carnival cruise ship on which Dr. Taylor was then working to encourage cruise line employees to open accounts. Although Dr. Taylor was always paid in cash while at sea and deposited his salary in a bank account on the Isle of Jersey, Bank of America made opening a new account so easy that he opened two accounts believing it might prove convenient. According to Dr. Taylor he maintained only a minimum balance and made use of only the debit card attached to the accounts. When the debit card expired, Bank of America required him to provide a new address before it would issue a new card. To satisfy this demand, he provided the Miami address of his friend and former manager at Carnival Cruise Lines, Steve Williams, who had recruited him to work for Royal Caribbean. We agree with Dr. Taylor that neither maintaining these accounts, see La Reunion Française, 818 So.2d at 659, nor engaging in any of the other activities detailed above, whether considered alone or together, constitute the continuous and systematic contacts necessary to establish general jurisdiction over him.

The record is that Dr. Taylor is a citizen of Great Britain where he was born, raised, attended medical school, and still has family. Dr. Taylor has never resided in Florida; he has never owned or rented real property in Florida; he is not licensed to practice medicine here; and he has never owned or operated a business (or medical practice) in this State. The crux of the matter therefore falls upon the last factor relied on by both the court below and our dissenting colleague, that is, the fact that the foreign flagged vessel on which Dr. Taylor works returns to its Florida home port for the embarkation/debarkation process one day a week, during which time Dr. Taylor may or may not see passengers and crew members in some limited capacity as a shipboard doctor.

To this end, the record establishes that the ship’s medical center is closed on the morning on which the ship returns to its Florida home port to disembark passengers. However, should an emergency arise while the ship is returning to port, emergency treatment is rendered either by Dr. Taylor or any other ship’s doctor who may be on duty at the time:

Generally speaking, the ship’s medical center is closed when the ship is in ... the home port day.... There will be occasions when emergencies happen ... on the last few hours of the cruise on the — prior to arrival, where emergency care has to be rendered.

The ship’s medical center then remains closed until some unspecified time during the evening after the ship has left port. And, while either Dr. Taylor or any other ship’s doctor would provide emergency medical care to either passengers or crew while the ship is departing, the medical clinic was open for that one hour on the evening of departure primarily to care for crew members since passengers generally would not have been on board long enough to become seriously ill:

The medical center is usually open just for one hour in the evenings [on embarkation day], which 99 percent of the time is simply for crew members because most of the guests have only been onboard by that time a couple of hours, which is generally not enough time to become significantly ill.

Thus, while there is no evidence that Dr. Taylor actually treated any passenger or crew member while in Florida or its territorial waters, the evidence shows that it is likely, as Dr. Taylor candidly admitted, that he rendered emergency treatment to someone in Florida territorial waters while coming into or going out of port:

Q. So you have provided medical care in the State of Florida onboard the Royal Caribbean ships, Correct?
MR. FRIEDMAN [COUNSEL FOR DR. TAYLOR]: Objection to form.
[DR. TAYLOR]: There will have been occasions, I’m sure.
BY MS. MEISTER [COUNSEL FOR GUTIERREZ]:
Q. So you’re not denying that you provided medical care to patients in the State of Florida, correct?
A. On an emergency basis, that is correct.
Q. What about the crew members, didn’t you see crew members while in the State of Florida on a nonemergency basis, that were sick or had an injury or for whatever reason need to see a doctor?
A. The ship’s medical center was generally open one hour on embarkation day, which I’m no expert on the nautical miles, but that was probably within Florida territorial waters.
Q. So for that one hour, you would treat patients while the ship was likely in Florida territory waters, correct?
A. That could be the case, yes.
Q. Was that ever not the case?
[DR. TAYLOR]: Yes, very much so, because when there’s more than one doctor on the ship, not every doctor is working the clinic. So if it’s a two-doctor ship, you may only work that clinic every other week.

(Emphasis added).

This is not the “stuff’ that general jurisdiction is made of since it is neither continuous nor systematic and, thus, does not satisfy the stringent requirements of either section 48.193(2) or the due process considerations set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). See Caiazzo, 73 So.3d at 252 (finding that “substantial and not isolated activity” set forth in section 48.193(2) is the functional equivalent to “continuous and systematic general business contacts,” and that “[b]ecause substantial, continuous, and systematic business contacts is the standard for both subsection (2) of Florida’s long-arm statute and the due process requirement for general jurisdiction, a finding of substantial, continuous and systematic business contacts will satisfy both the long arm statute and the due process requirements of Helicópteros ”); Farrell, 2013 WL 178367 at *4 (confirming that although a ship “carrying” the defendant nurse had docked in Florida 159 times, no evidence existed that she was on duty or had treated patients during some or all of those times).

To this end, we find Hesterly v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 06-22862-CIV, 2008 WL 516495 (S.D.Fla.2008) particularly persuasive on this point. Hesterly similarly involved a Royal Caribbean cruise ship that returned to a South Florida port following a weeklong voyage for embarkation/disembarkation of passengers, with the ship being in Florida’s territorial waters for a total of approximately twelve hours, one day a week. Id. at *2. The record in that case established that the shipboard infirmary was open from 8:00 a.m. to noon while the vessel was in the Florida port, during which time the ship’s doctors were available to treat departing passengers for approximately two and half hours and crew members for the entire four hours. Id. Furthermore, “[tjaking all inferences in favor of Plaintiff,” the trial court assumed that “the infirmary reopened as the new passengers boarded the vessel.” Unlike this case, the ship doctors in Hesterly maintained that they had never actually seen any passengers or crew members in the infirmary while it was within Florida’s territorial waters. Nevertheless, the court found that, even if the doctors had seen a few patients while the cruise ship was in Florida’s territorial waters, that it was “hard to imagine how this minimal activity could amount to substantial and not isolated general business activity in the State of Florida by foreign doctors treating seaman inside a foreign flagged vessel.” Id. at *10. Particularly since “the amount of time spent within Florida’s territorial boundaries during the doctors’s [sic] ... contracts was very minimal” and the doctor’s performed the majority of their medical services “on the high seas and at foreign ports of call.” Id. We find Hesterly sufficiently analogous to the instant matter and conclude that Dr. Taylor’s contacts with the State of Florida were not sufficient to confer general jurisdiction over him. See also Caiazzo, 73 So.3d at 259 (noting that “courts have found that a company’s level of business in Florida may be insufficient to constitute ‘continuous and systematic business activities’ when only a de minimis percentage of the total sales is derived from its sales to Florida”).

We also note that this case is not at all like Dean v. Johns, 789 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), which found general jurisdiction existed over a non-resident doctor from Alabama. The doctor in that case, who practiced a subspecialty of neurology in Birmingham, Alabama, “always” accepted Florida patient referrals from a Florida doctor located in the Florida panhandle. Id. at 1075. The record further established that he had treated over 3,200 Florida patients; that he was licensed to practice medicine in Florida; that he had subjected himself to Florida regulations for the practice of medicine in Florida; that he regularly consulted with Florida physicians by telephone; that he gave reports to Florida physicians for use in treating Florida patients in Florida, and that he owned property in Florida. Id. at 1078. Based on all of these contacts with the State of Florida, none of which are present here, the First District found that section 48.193(2) and due process concerns were satisfied.

Accordingly, because Dr. Taylor’s contacts with the State of Florida were not sufficient to meet either Florida’s long arm statute, section 48.193, or the federal due process considerations set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Heli-cópteros, the court below erred in finding general jurisdiction over him. We therefore reverse the order denying Dr. Taylor’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and remand with instructions to enter an order of dismissal.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SHEPHERD, C.J., concurs.

SALTER, J.

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent based on the unique facts elicited by Ms. Gutierrez during jurisdictional discovery. In this case, unlike the reported opinions relied upon by my colleagues and Dr. Taylor, a non-Florida resident, the cruise ship doctor systematically and continuously staffed an onboard medical clinic and treated passengers and crew while Royal Caribbean Cruise Line (RCCL) vessels were in Florida territorial waters. In my view, these activities were sufficient to establish jurisdiction over Dr. Taylor under section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes (2011), and to satisfy the “minimum contacts” requirements.

I. The Jurisdictional Allegations and Course of Discovery

Ms. Gutierrez alleged in her amended complaint against RCCL and Dr. Taylor that she and her husband boarded an RCCL vessel in May 2010 at Port Everglades, Florida, for a seven-night cruise in the western Caribbean. On the second night of the cruise, Ms. Gutierrez experienced intense abdominal pain and was taken by wheelchair to the medical facility aboard the vessel. She alleged that Dr. Taylor diagnosed and treated her for gastritis, when in fact she was suffering from a much more serious and dangerous abdominal infection. She alleges that she and her husband were told she could not be evacuated from the vessel and taken to an on-shore hospital, when in fact air ambulance service could have been arranged. Ms. Gutierrez sought medical assistance at the ship’s next port. Ultimately, she claims, she suffered abdominal sepsis, multiple organ failures, and a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of the negligence and misinformation on the part of RCCL and Dr. Taylor.

The pertinent jurisdictional allegations within the amended complaint included allegations that Dr. Taylor engaged in business subjecting him to Florida jurisdiction under section 48.193(2) by, among other things:

[25. a. (1) ] Providing shipboard medical care to passengers and/or crew members, to include passengers and/or crew members aboard the [RCCL vessel] and other cruise ships for voyages to include the voyage at issue while in the territorial waters of the State of Florida;
[25. a. (2) ] Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in the State of Florida by fact of operating shipboard Medical Facilities, to include the one onboard the [RCCL vessel] and other cruise ships for voyages to include the voyage at issue while in the territorial waters of the State of Florida ....

(Emphasis supplied).

Dr. Taylor filed, among other motions, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and a three-page sworn declaration disclaiming, in essence, citizenship, residency, property ownership, operation of a business, licen-sure as a physician, having an office or agency, or engaging in substantial business, in the State of Florida. During jurisdictional discovery, counsel for Ms. Gutierrez established an array of contacts with and in Florida, including the ownership of bank accounts in Miami, attendance and instruction at cruise ship medical courses in South Florida, the solicitation and execution of his contracts in Miami with cruise lines including RCCL, and occasional shore side visits to see friends. I agree with my colleagues that many of these contacts (such as attendance and instruction at medical courses in Florida) have been ruled in prior cases to be “incidental” to a cruise ship physician’s medical duties and thus insufficient to support personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(2). See, e.g., Farrell v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2013 WL 178367 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 4, 2013).

Dr. Taylor’s deposition testimony, however, included confirmation that his medical duties included treatment of crew members and passengers while a vessel was in Florida ports and coastal waters:

Q. It’s my understanding that during the time that you worked for Royal Caribbean, you worked on some vessels that had the home port in the State of Florida, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when working on those ships with the home port in Florida, you provided medical care to patients onboard the ship in the State of Florida, correct?
[Counsel for Dr. Taylor]: Objection to form.
A. [Dr. Taylor]: Generally speaking, the ship’s medical center is closed when the ship is in embarkation day, which would be the home port day. That’s for reasons that we have to take care of supplies.
The medical center is usually open just for one hour in the evenings, which 99 percent of the time is simply for crew members because most of the guests have only been onboard by that time a couple of hours, which is generally not enough time to become significantly ill.
There will be occasions when emergencies happen, both on the day of departure and on the last few hours of the cruise on the — prior to arrival, where emergency care has to be rendered.
Q. So you have provided medical care in the State of Florida onboard the Royal Caribbean ships, correct?
[Counsel for Dr. Taylor]: Objection to form.

A. [Dr. Taylor]: There will have been occasions, I’m sure.

Q. So you’re not denying that you provided medical care to patients in the State of Florida, correct?
A. On an emergency basis, that is correct.
Q. What about the crew members, didn’t you see crew members while in the State of Florida on a nonemergency basis, that were sick or had an injury or for whatever reason need to see a doctor?
A. The ship’s medical.center was generally open one hour on embarkation day, which I’m no expert on the nautical miles, but that was probably within Florida territorial waters.
Q. So for that one hour, you would treat patients while the ship was likely in Florida territory waters, correct?
A. That could be the case, yes.
Q. Was that ever not the case?
.[Counsel for Dr. Taylor]: Objection to form.
A. Yes, very much so, because when there’s more than one doctor on the ship, not every doctor is working the clinic. So if it’s a two-doctor ship, you may only work that clinic every other week.
Q. Okay.
A. And then, of course, it’s dependent on whether people come in.
Q. So, if you’re on a ship that was in a Florida port on a weekly basis, then likely you would see patients on a weekly basis within the State of Florida, if you’re on duty that particular day?
[Counsel for Dr. Taylor]: Objection to form.
A: Yes, if I was on duty.
Q. Sir, with respect to your treatment of patients in the State of Florida, do you have copies of medical records or other records which would indicate patients that you treated in the State of Florida?
A. No, I don’t.

(Footnote added).

Additional evidence established that Dr. Taylor had been in port on duty aboard RCCL vessels 32 days in 2010 during em-barkment and disembarkment visits to Florida ports, and additional days over the several years Dr. Taylor served ■ RCCL and another cruise line based in Florida.

Following jurisdictional discovery, the trial court heard the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied it in a detailed order, determining that specific personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1) had not been acquired over Dr. Taylor, and that general personal jurisdiction had been acquired under section 48.193(2). This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

It is undisputed that Ms. Gutierrez’s illness and treatment occurred outside the territorial waters of Florida, and thus the trial court’s rejection of specific personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1) is correct. With regard to section 48.193(2), we apply two tests under the oft-cited case of Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989), strictly construing the long-arm statute in favor of the nonresident defendant. Ferguson v. Estate of Campana, 47 So.3d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

A. “Substantial and Not Isolated Activity in Florida”

The first test is whether Dr. Taylor engaged in “substantial and not isolated activity within this state” over the course of his six years with another cruise line and three years with RCCL. My colleagues are correct that a number of our opinions establish that personal vacations in Florida between cruises, visits to be interviewed by cruise lines, the execution of agreements in Florida, and similar “incidental” or “almost personal” contacts fall short of the “continuous and systematic business contacts” with Florida required to establish general personal jurisdiction under 48.193(2). See E & H Cruises, Ltd. v. Baker, 88 So.3d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

But those state and federal cases before this one, it appears, have not involved a cruise line physician whose duties and actual activities over a course of years (and for out-and-back cruises from Florida ports) included the treatment of crew members and passengers while a vessel is in Florida territorial waters and while it is docked in a Florida port. In Rinker v. Carnival Corp., 2011 WL 3163473 (S.D.Fla. July 26, 2011), a citizen of, and nurse registered in, Australia worked aboard a Florida-based cruise line’s vessels, often departing from and returning to Florida ports. The court concluded that her contacts with Florida fell short of the continuous and systematic contacts necessary to establish general jurisdiction, finding specifically that, although she had been aboard a ship that docked in Florida 16 times, “the evidence shows that [the nurse] never provided any medical care while aboard a ship that was docked in Florida.” Id. at *4.

Similarly, in Farrell, an RCCL nurse was a citizen and resident of South Africa. She was aboard RCCL cruise ships when they docked in Florida 159 times. The court concluded that medical training in Miami, the appointment of RCCL as her agent under a contract, and management by RCCL’s shore side medical department in her administration of onboard treatment (in international waters), were not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, noting again specifically that “[n]o evidence has been produced, however, establishing that [the nurse] was on duty and/or treated any passengers while the ships were docked in Florida” and “there is no evidence that [the nurse] treated any patients while docked in Florida ports.” Farrell at *3.

And again, in the case cited as “particularly persuasive” by my colleagues, Hesterly v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2008 WL 516495 (S.D.Fla.2008), the cruise ship physician defendants’ affidavits stated that they “never treated any patients while the vessel was within the State of Florida,” and the plaintiff provided no deposition testimony to contradict the affidavits. Id. at *8. In contrast, in the case at hand Dr. Taylor testified that it was a regular part of his assignment as a paid physician to be on duty, and when necessary to . treat patients, while the vessel was in Florida waters and returning to Miami, docked in Miami, and leaving Miami, weekly, over a course of nine years.

This is not a distinction without a difference, as any Florida-based ship’s captain with a casino aboard might explain — the unregulated gambling prohibited by Florida law doesn’t begin until the ship is in international waters. Providing medical treatment in Florida ports and territorial waters for compensation, over a course of years, and from week to week, is not “incidental, almost entirely personal” activity. And included within that scope of work is the duty of being available, as part of Dr. Taylor’s duties, to treat crew members and patients during those times the vessel was in a Florida port or territorial waters. As one of RCCL’s attorneys explained to the trial judge in a hearing explaining why RCCL should not have to produce daily patient logs (redacted to eliminate names or other private information about individual patients) for the days the ship was in port or in Florida waters:

.. .if it’s their position that, you know, whether he was practicing medicine in Florida territorial waters is what’s relevant, then arguably all they need to know is the number of times he was on a ship and that ship was in a port of Florida or in Florida waters. It doesn’t matter whether [Dr. Taylor] saw four people or zero people. You know, he’s practicing medicine regardless of whether or not he’s treating someone. Just like if I’m in my office and I don’t have a client, that doesn’t mean I’m not practicing law. So there’s no reason for them to have, you know, X number of patients.

I agree with that candid assessment, and I question whether RCCL should be able to feature on-line marketing videos regarding its onboard medical services (as jurisdictional discovery established in this case) — apparently available while the ship is in Florida and Florida waters — while Dr. Taylor disclaims Florida jurisdiction over him.

B. “Minimum Contacts” and Constitutional Due Process

The second of the two Venetian Salami tests — “minimum contacts” with Florida for federal and state constitutional purposes — is also satisfied. In assessing a defendant’s contacts, “ ‘the facts ■ of each case must always be weighed in determining whether personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice,’ and ‘any talismanic jurisdictional for-muías’ are expressly rejected.” In the present case, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Dr. Taylor can hardly be labelled unfair or unjust. His regular personal presence in Florida, and his professional duties and treatment performed in Florida ports and waters, constituted a purposeful avaihnent of the privilege of performing medical services in Florida, such that he could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in Florida. WorldWide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).

My colleagues’ reliance on Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984), warrants further analysis. In that case, four United States citizens perished in a helicopter crash in Peru. The decedents were employed by a Peruvian venture with an office in Texas. The helicopter was owned by Helicópteros, a Colombian company. An executive of Heli-cópteros had flown to Houston to discuss the Peruvian project, but Helicópteros had never conducted its business (flying helicopters for oil and construction companies in South America) anywhere in Texas. Id. at 411, 104 S.Ct. 1868. The families of the decedents initiated wrongful death actions in Texas against a group of defendants that included Helicópteros, and the question was whether general jurisdiction over Helicópteros had been established.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Texas (which had upheld general jurisdiction in that state), holding that “the one trip to Houston by [Helieopteros’s] chief executive officer for the purpose of negotiating the transportation-services contract with [the Peruvian venture] cannot be described or regarded as a contact of a ‘continuous and systematic’ nature.” Id. at 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the acceptance by Helicópteros of payment checks drawn on a Houston bank, and visits to Texas by Helicópteros personnel for purchases and training, were a sufficient basis for general jurisdiction. Id. at 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868.

Simply stated, Helicópteros never offered to provide, and never provided, any helicopter flights in Texas. Such flights were the business of Helicópteros, and that business was conducted in Colombia and elsewhere in South America. In the case at hand, Dr. Taylor’s business is as a doctor. His willingness and ability to deliver such services to passengers in Florida ports and territorial waters was established. Dr. Taylor’s availability, and those services, were continuous and systematic by virtue of the weekly schedules of RCCL and its ships over a course of years. Those facts made it foreseeable that Dr. Taylor would be haled into court in Florida.

Conclusion

Dr. Taylor could easily be considered a doctor without a country, residing aboard ship and in international waters rather than a specific home or country. But this case, unlike prior state and federal precedent on the point, features competent, substantial evidence that the physician’s paid duties and patient treatment (frequent, recurring, and continuing over a course of years) included medical duties and services while in Florida ports and territorial waters. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s order denying Dr. Taylor’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

I disagree with the majority’s view that the trial court relaxed the requirements of “well-established case law in order to redress what it clearly deemed a nefarious scheme by Dr. Taylor to avoid being sued not only in a Florida court but in any court....” (Emphasis in the original). This is apparently the first case in which a non-resident shipboard physician has conceded under oath that his medical duties included availability and services rendered to patients in Florida ports and territorial waters, on an almost weekly basis over a course of years.

For these reasons, I would affirm, and I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ opinion.

      . Gutierrez does not appeal the trial court’s determination that specific jurisdiction does not lie in this case. Even if she did, we would affirm this finding as the record demonstrates that Dr. Taylor did not provide any medical services to her in Florida or within Florida territorial waters. See Small v. Chicola, 929 So.2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding the trial court did not have specific jurisdiction over a shipboard doctor where the record demonstrated the plaintiff was not treated in Florida territorial waters).

      . Dr. Taylor contracts with Royal Caribbean (and earlier with Carnival Cruise Lines) as an independent contractor. Dr. Taylor, who has • been to Royal Caribbean’s headquarters only once while waiting to board a ship, does not negotiate these contracts with Royal Caribbean. He either accepts them or does not and receives and signs them while at sea.

      . The address that appeared on the initial account statements was that of Carnival's corporate headquarters, located in Doral, Florida.

      . Dr. Taylor testified that he is not always the only ship physician on board and that if the ship is a two physician ship, he will be on call on these occasions only every other week. Steve Williams, Director of Fleet Medical Operations for Royal Caribbean, testified that large ships like the Oasis of the Seas have three physicians and five nurses on board who share these duties.

      . Steve Williams, Director of Fleet Medical Operations for Royal Caribbean, confirmed this testimony in his own deposition:
      Q. ... Were there designated medical center hours?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Okay. What were those hours?
      A. Typically when the ship was at sea or outside its home port, they would be 8 in the morning till 11. And then in the afternoon it would be from 3 to 6, or 4 to 7, depending on the itinerary and the port.

      Q. Now, you indicated those hours were when the vessel was at sea. What were the clinic hours on embarkation, debarkation dates?
      A. Typically the clinics will be closed in the mornings, so when the ship comes into the home port, the clinic is not open. And then typically the clinic would open in the afternoon, usually just for a couple hours between 5 and 7 and that would be typically after the ship has left port.

      Q. If I understand correctly, Royal Caribbean allows its ship’s physicians to perform medical service aboard its vessel, which is foreign flagged, in Florida ports and in Florida waters, limited to onboard the vessel; is that fair?
      A. Well, yeah, I mean, our physicians and nurses are expected to respond to medical emergencies when they're on the vessel, especially if it's an emergency....
      Q. Okay. And it’s not just medical emergencies, because they have clinic hours where they provide non-medical emergency medical treatment also, I mean, someone got a cut on their hand and they need a few stitches — I don't know, maybe that's not a good example. But—
      A. Let me help you.
      Q. Okay, thank you.
      A. Typically, no. Because, for instance, you mentioned Florida. When the OASIS is in port in Florida, the clinic isn't open, so we don't have a clinic in the morning and the clinic in the afternoon is usually [open] after the ship has left.
      Because when the ship is getting ready to leave, there are all sorts of drills and things that happen to guests and crew, so it’s a busy time. So typically our clinic hours are after the ship has left.
      Now, at what point the ship is three miles off the coast, I don't know. But I would say, generally speaking, there aren’t that many non-emergency things happening in the medical center that the physicians are involved with, while the ship is in Florida state water, if that helps.

      . The Helicópteros court found insufficient to satisfy the continuous and systematic general business contacts needed to support general jurisdiction over a Columbian company evidence that the Columbian company had sent its chief executive to Texas to negotiate a contract; accepted checks into its New York bank account drawn on a Texas bank; purchased millions of dollars in helicopters and equipment from Texas; sent pilots to Texas for training and to ferry purchased helicopters to South America; and sent management and maintenance personnel to Texas for training and consultation.

      . Despite these admissions, Dr. Taylor’s initial brief claims, incorrectly, that “Dr. Taylor did not provide any medical treatment in Florida or its territorial waters.”

      . Elmlund v. Mottershead, 750 So.2d 736, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

      . In Hesterly, the plaintiff did not take the depositions of the defendant doctors. In their interrogatory answers, "Both doctors answered that they never treated any patients while the vessel was docked in Florida or while the vessel was within the territorial waters of the State of Florida.” Id. at *1 n. 1.

      . Spectrum Gaming Gip., Gambling Impact Study: Part I, Section A 30 (Commissioned by Fla. Leg.)(July 1, 2013), available at http:// www.leg.state.fl.us/GamingStudy/docs/FL_ Gambling_Impact_Study_PartlA.pdf (last visited October 18, 2013).

      . Mark A. Sessums and Brian M. Monk, A Wrinkle in Time: Personal Jurisdiction's Evolution — Pleading, Proving and Defending Personal Jurisdiction Issues, 87 Fla. Bar. J. 16, 19 (Nov. 2013) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 485-86, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).

      . Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).

      . Edward Everett Hale imagined "The Man Without a Country, ” an American who renounced his citizenship and thereafter moved only from ship to ship, in a short story published in The Atlantic magazine in December 1863.