Huey Leger, Et Ux. v. Icl America Limited

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-226

HUEY LEGER, ET UX.

VERSUS

ICL AMERICA LIMITED, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 2010-11106
HONORABLE MARILYN C. CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Billy Howard Ezell, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

David R. Frohn
David R. Frohn, LLC
2201 Lake Street, Suite 106
Lake Charles, LA 70601-7199
(337) 419-1929
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Gwen Leger
Huey Leger

Russell K. Zaunbrecher
Brett A. Stefanski
Edwards, Stefanski & Zaunbrecher
P.O. Drawer 730
Crowley, LA 70527-0730
(337) 783-7000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Gwen Leger
Huey Leger

Heather S. Duplantis
Gregory T. Stevens
Jack B. Stanley
Frederick S. Kaiser
Alex J. Velazquez
Phelps Dunbar LLP
P. O. Box 4412
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4412
(225) 346-0285
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
ICL America Limited

Joseph S. Sano
Prince, Lobel, Tye, LLP
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 2200
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 456-8000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
ICL America Limited

Christopher H. Hebert
Rabalais & Hebert, LLC
701 Robley Drive, Suite 210
Lafayette, LA 70503
(337) 981-0309
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Burlington Insurance Company

Paul N. Vance
Jedd S. Malish
Baldwin, Haspel, Burke & Mayer, LLC
Energy Centre, Suite 3600
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
(504) 569-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
International Conveyors Limited

David T. Butler, Jr.
Funderburk & Butler
1111 South Foster Drive, Suite G
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
(225) 924-1000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company, Inc.

Keith W. McDaniel
Quincy T. Crochet
Heather M. Nagel
McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, McDaniel & Welch LLC
195 Greenbriar Boulavard, Suite 200
Covington, LA 70433
(504) 831-0946
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Southern Vanguard Insurance Company
D.E. Shipp Belting Company

PETERS, J.

The husband-and-wife plaintiffs, Huey and Gwen Leger, brought this

personal injury action against a number of defendants to recover damages they
1
sustained when a conveyor belt, manufactured by International Conveyors

Limited (International Conveyors), ripped apart and struck Mr. Leger. The Legers

and two of the defendants, ICL America Limited (ICL America) and The

Burlington Insurance Company (Burlington Insurance), appeal the trial court’s

grant of a declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction over International

Conveyors, dismissing the Legers’ claims against that defendant. For the

following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of the exception and remand

the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

Mr. Leger sustained his personal injuries on March 3, 2010, while installing

a new conveyor belt at Peoples Moss Gin Plant (Peoples Moss Gin) in Palmetto,

Louisiana. At the time of the accident, Mr. Leger worked for Rice Belt

Distributors, Inc. (Rice Belt), a Louisiana corporation, whose principal business is

the installation of grain equipment throughout South Louisiana. Peoples Moss Gin

hired Rice Belt to replace an eighty-foot vertical conveyor belt in its grain elevator

with a new conveyor belt. International Conveyors, an Indian company,

manufactured the conveyor-belt material from which the new belt was cut, and

sold that material to D.E. Shipp Belting Company (Shipp Belting) using ICL

America as an intermediary in the transaction. Shipp Belting’s offices are in Waco,

Texas, and it is a regional distributor of, among other products, conveyor belting

1
Mrs. Leger seeks to recover consortium damages she sustained as a result of the injuries
to her husband.

for nearly all industries, including agriculture. ICL America is a New York

wholesaler of conveyor belt products.

Rice Belt retained the services of H. Brown Cranes & Rigging, Inc. (Brown

Cranes) to provide a crane and crane operator for the job; and as the crane lifted

the new conveyor belt into place, the belt ripped apart and fell on Mr. Leger and a
2
co-worker. The Legers brought suit against a number of defendants, including
3
ICL American, Shipp Belting, International Conveyors, and Brown Cranes.

The matter now before us involves the trial court’s grant of International

Conveyors’ declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, thereby

dismissing that defendant from the litigation. The trial court rendered the

judgment on the exception on September 2, 2014, and executed a written judgment

to that effect on September 10, 2014. Thereafter, the Legers, ICL America, and
4
Burlington Insurance perfected separate appeals. The only issue raised in all three

appeals is whether the trial court properly granted the exception of lack of personal

jurisdiction.

OPINION

The declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction over the person of

a defendant is provided for in La.Code Civ.P. art. 925(A)(5). The party asserting

that jurisdiction is proper, and not the party raising the exception, bears the initial

2
Liability insurers of these various defendants were added as defendants in the litigation.
Additionally, some of the defendants were added in filings subsequent to the Legers’ original
petition.
3
The liability of Brown Cranes and its insurer was the subject of a prior opinion of this
court. In that opinion, this court affirmed the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment
dismissing Brown Cranes and its insurer from the litigation. Leger v. ICL America Limited, 13-
1334, pp. 1-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/14) (unpublished opinion). In that opinion, this court set forth
the particulars of the accident giving rise to this litigation, and our summary of the background is
a partial adaption of the finding of the prior panel. Causation is not an issue in this appeal.
4
Suit was brought against Burlington Insurance in its capacity as the liability insurer of
ICL America.
2

burden of proof. Hillman v. Griffin, 13-648 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d

661. However, if the party with the initial burden of proof establishes the

existence of minimum contacts between the opposing party and the forum, a

presumption arises that jurisdiction is reasonable. Id. The burden then shifts to the

party raising the exception to establish that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in

the case would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id.

The standard of review applied by an appellate court to the trial court’s legal

ruling on the issue of personal jurisdiction is de novo. Park W. Children’s Fund,

Inc. v. Trinity Broad. Network, Inc., 13-444 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/16/13), 156 So.3d

682. However, the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed pursuant to the

manifest error standard. Id.

At the hearing on the exception, the trial court did not place the initial

burden on the Legers. Instead, as the hearing began, the trial court stated to

counsel for International Conveyors, “[I]t’s your motion, so if you would make

your initial offerings, and then we’ll let the other parties make their offerings as

well.” In response to the trial court’s instruction, counsel for International

Conveyors offered and introduced into evidence “all the exhibits attached to [its]

exception and reply brief[.]” Counsel for the Legers then offered and introduced

into evidence seventeen exhibits, some of which were duplicates of documents

introduced by International Conveyors. At the completion of oral argument, the

trial court entered judgment for International Conveyors with the following oral

reasons:

And the Court finds in this case that, while International
[Conveyors] had a product that ended up here in the state of Louisiana,
and, therefore, there can be said that the product was somehow in the
stream of commerce, without more, that is not an act of the defendant
purposely directed toward the forum state.

3

And so there needs to be additional indication that International
[Conveyors] took action – actively took action to do business within
the state of Louisiana. And the Court finds that the record is devoid
of such additional facts.

As I’ve said several times today, the exercise of personal
jurisdiction cannot be made under the circumstances that would
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

In this case, the Court finds that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over International [Conveyors] would, in fact, be violative
of those principals, due to the fact that International [Conveyors] did
not, based on the record, take any action directly to avail itself of this
forum state or to take advantage of any of the protections of the state
so as to have subjected itself to being haled into court here. And so
the Court is going to grant the exception of lack of personal
jurisdiction.

The supreme court set forth the law relative to personal jurisdiction issues in

Southeast Wireless Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telemetry Corp., 06-1736, pp. 3-6 (La.

4/11/07), 954 So.2d 120, 124-25 (alteration in original), wherein it stated:

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

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.

(2) Contracting to supply services or things
in this state.

(3) Causing injury or damage by an offense
or quasi offense committed through an act or
omission 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.

4

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.

Subsection B was added in 1987 to ensure that jurisdiction
under the long-arm statute extended to the limits allowed by due
process. Official Comments, Acts 1987, No. 418. In Fox v. Board of
Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College, 576 So.2d 978 (La.1991), this Court stated that
“[s]ince the 1987 amendment to LSA-R.S. 13:3201, the sole inquiry
in Louisiana into jurisdiction over a nonresident is whether the
assertion of jurisdiction complies with constitutional due process.
(citation omitted) The limits of the Louisiana long arm statute and the
limits of constitutional due process are coextensive and therefore, if
the assertion of jurisdiction meets the constitutional requirements of
due process the assertion of jurisdiction is authorized under the long
arm statute.” Fox, 576 So.2d at 983.

This due process requirement has evolved into a two-part test.
In order to subject a nonresident defendant to personal jurisdiction,
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. International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); de Reyes
v. Marine Mgt. and Consulting, 586 So.2d 103 (La.1991).

The “minimum contacts” prong 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.” Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528
(1985). This “purposeful availment” must be such that the defendant
“should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in the forum
state. Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 1998-1126
(La.4/13/99), 731 So.2d 881, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1019, 120 S.Ct.
526, 145 L.Ed.2d 407 (1999). This part of the test ensures that the
defendant 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. de Reyes, 586 So.2d at 106;
Alonso v. Line, 2002-2644 (La.5/20/03), 846 So.2d 745, cert. denied,
540 U.S. 967, 124 S.Ct. 434, 157 L.Ed.2d 311 (2003). If the
defendant deliberately engages in significant activities within a state,
or creates continuing obligations between himself and residents of the
forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of
conducting business there. Because his activities are shielded by the
benefits and protections of the forum’s laws, it is presumptively not
unreasonable to require the defendant to submit to the burdens of
litigation in that forum. de Reyes, 586 So.2d at 106.

5

The second part of the due process test centers around the
fairness of the assertion of jurisdiction. Once minimum contacts are
established, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors
to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would
comport with “fair play and substantial justice.” Burger King Corp.,
471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. at 2184. Thus, once the plaintiff meets his
burden of proving minimum contacts, “a presumption of
reasonableness of jurisdiction arises” and “the burden then shifts to
the opposing party to prove the assertion of jurisdiction would be so
unreasonable in light of traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice as to overcome the presumption of reasonableness created by
the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum.” de Reyes, 586
So.2d at 107. In determining this fundamental fairness issue, the
relevant considerations are: (1) the defendant’s burden; (2) the forum
state’s interest; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective
relief; (4) the judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of
controversies; and (5) the state’s shared interest in furthering
fundamental social policies. Ruckstuhl, 731 So.2d at 890.

In its exception, International Conveyors asserted that it lacked minimum contacts

with Louisiana and that any attempt by a Louisiana court to exercise personal

jurisdiction over it would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.

International Conveyors was created under the laws of the nation of India in

1973, and is a publicly traded company on the Bombay and Calcutta stock

exchanges. The company’s registered office is located in Kolkata, India, and it
5
manufactures PVC FRAS solid-woven conveyor belts in its manufacturing plants,

also located in India. The conveyor belting it produces is used extensively in both

the mining industry and in surface industries requiring conveyor belts to handle

their materials. International Conveyors sells its products both domestically and

internationally and prides itself on having the single-largest manufacturing plant

for PVC belting in the world.

International Conveyors’ original market for its manufactured products was

primarily domestic. However, when that market became stagnant, the company
5
FRAS stands for fire-resistant and anti-static.

6

looked to the international market, and particularly North America, for its future

growth. International Conveyors began selling belting to distributers in the United
6
States in 2002, and its year-end reports for its fiscal years 2004-2005 through

2010-2011, establish the beginnings and the positive result of that shift toward the

international market. International Conveyors acquired both international and

United States certificates for the marketing of its conveyor belting in the greater

market; and in 2005, it became registered with Dun and Bradstreet and retained

Witeck Consultants, Inc., a New York marketing firm, to function as intermediary

between it and its American and Canadian customers.

Copies of purchase orders and invoices of International Conveyors’ sales to
7
the United States between FY 2002-03 and FY 2009-10, reflect the expansive

nature of International Conveyors’ activities in the continental United States.

During that period of time, International Conveyors shipped its manufactured
8
products from the port at Mumbai, India, through twelve United States ports, and
9
supplied distributors in thirteen different states, who in turn sold the belting to
10
customers located in twenty states. Thus, between 2002 and Mr. Leger’s 2010

accident, International Conveyors used the ports of eight states to introduce its

products into the United States, and supplied distributors in thirteen states, who in

6
International Conveyors’ fiscal year begins on April 1 and ends on March 31 of the
following year.
7
FY 2009-10 is the fiscal year in which Mr. Leger’s accident occurred.
8
These included ports in Virginia, South Carolina, New Jersey, New York, California,
Texas, Oregon, and Georgia.
9
These states were Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Kentucky,
Arkansas, California, Oregon, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia.
10
These states were Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas,
California, Michigan, Oregon, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Wyoming, Colorado, Virginia, and Tennessee.
7

turn sold to customers in twenty states, without any knowledge of, or concern for,

the ultimate markets these distributors and customers would serve.

Up until March of 2005, International Conveyors sold its conveyor belting

products directly to distributors in the United States. However, beginning in April

of 2005, International Conveyors began servicing almost all of its United States

market through ICL America, a New York company formed by Aamer Hussain,

the son of Anver Hussain, a director and member of International Conveyors’

Board of Directors. Aamer Hussain is a native of India, who attended college in

this country and never left. After graduating from college, he worked for a bank

for a while, but in 2003, he decided to form ICL America and become a wholesaler

of conveyor belting. Two years later, all of International Conveyors’ United States

business was being funneled through ICL America.

This arrangement was apparently profitable for both International Conveyors

and ICL America because in early 2010, International Conveyors was reporting a

forty percent increase in its net income. A January 25, 2010 press release

suggested that this increase was because “[s]upply of belting has gone up by 35%”

and “[i]mproved price realizations because of higher strength belting supplied to
11
the North American markets.” In the press release, R.K. Dabriwala, International

Conveyors’ managing director, commented that “[a]long with maintaining our

growth momentum in the domestic market, we have made a conscious effort to

grow internationally and have been successful especially in the North American

markets.” (Emphasis added.)

Despite the extent of International Conveyors’ involvement in the United

States market, as of the time of Mr. Leger’s accident, it had never directly

11
According to the press release, its net profit expressed in rupees, the currency of India,
was “at Rs. 233.8 million from Rs. 167.0 million.”
8

12
conducted any business in Louisiana. At the same time, however, the evidence

established that because of International Conveyors extensive business interests

throughout the United States, it should have recognized that the appearance of its

product in Louisiana was not a random, fortuitous or attenuated event, and that in

supplying distributors across the United States, it was not limiting the use of its

product to the domicile states of the distributors.

One of the long-time sources supplying Louisiana with conveyor belting

products is Shipp Belting, who supplied the International Conveyors’ conveyor-

belting material at issue in this litigation. Shipp Belting supplies a six-state area
13
from its Waco, Texas headquarters, with one of those states being Louisiana; and

Rice Belt had been a Shipp Belting customer since at least 1971. Additionally,

Gregory Ogden, president of Shipp Belting, identified that specific service area to

Aamer Hussain when he approached Mr. Ogden to solicit Shipp Belting’s business
14
for ICL America and International Conveyors in 2007. With this knowledge, Mr.

Hussain placed no limitations on the area of operation for Shipp Belting when the

agreement for Shipp Belting to order its belting requirements through ICL America

was consummated. Shipp Belting’s records reflect that in 2009, the company

purchased $285,048.31 in International Conveyors’ products through ICL America;

the amount purchased through the date of Mr. Leger’s accident was $198,735.16.

International Conveyors had independent knowledge of the potential for its

products being used in Louisiana as well. Aamer Hussain testified that in 2009, he

12
At no time did International Conveyors qualify to do business, appoint a registered
agent for service of process, hire employees, own property, pay taxes, keep accounts or books,
market its products, or enter into contracts with individuals or companies in Louisiana.
13
The other states are Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Mississippi.
14
Mr. Ogden testified to this fact with confidence because it was his policy to inform all
vendors servicing Shipp Belting of its sales territory to avoid conflicts with the vendor’s other
customers servicing the same sales area.
9

assisted International Conveyors in compiling a bid package to obtain the business

of Cargill, a Minneapolis, Minnesota based corporation, and the bid submitted by

International Conveyors addressed Cargill’s requirements for Louisiana facilities at

Port Allen, Westwego, Reserve, and Avery Island. Mr. Hussain further

acknowledged that a Carlsbad, New Mexico customer purchasing International

Conveyor products also maintained operations in Faustina and Independence,

Louisiana; although he could not say whether the New Mexico company ever

shipped the manufactured belting to those locations.

To avoid Aamer Hussain’s information concerning the use of its products in

Louisiana, being attributed to it, International Conveyors takes the position that its

only relationship with ICL America is that of manufacturer and wholesale

distributor. That is to say, it took no part in the way ICL America marketed its

products, and it provided ICL America with no assistance, such as catalogs,

pamphlets, or promotional videos. International Conveyors further suggests that

ICL America has no ownership interest in, is not a subsidiary of, and is not the

parent company of International Conveyors. Likewise, International Conveyors

does not have an ownership interest in, is not a subsidiary of, and is not the parent

company of ICL America. None of ICL America’s officers or members of its

board of directors serve as officers or members of International Conveyors’ board

of directors or vice versa. Additionally, Shipp Belting did not order the defective

material directly from International Conveyors. Instead, it placed the order

through ICL America.

This argument ignores the clear evidence contained in the record to the

contrary. The very initials used by Aamer Hussain in forming his company and his

father’s relationship with International Conveyors illustrates the weakness of this

10

argument. Mr. Hussain ran a one-man show out of his home, without any

warehouse space or inventory of products and with International Conveyors as his

only supplier. ICL America does not advertise, does not accept online purchases

on its website, and recruits customers by solicitation in person or by telephone,

email, or fax. In short, it is simply a flow-through company for the primary benefit

of International Conveyors. Because it does not maintain an inventory, ICL

America obtains a binding order from a distributer before requesting delivery of

the needed product from International Conveyors. Sometime the product is

shipped directly to the distributor, and other times it is shipped to ICL America and

forwarded to the distributor. In any event, the process is that ICL America
15
purchases conveyor belt material primarily from International Conveyors and

transfers it to distributors, who in turn sell the product to other distributors,

wholesalers, or the end users.

Although the record contains evidence to the contrary, Mr. Hussain claimed

to be the only employee of ICL America. When confronted with a printout from

ICL America’s website listing him, B. L. Roy and Nirmal Murkherjee as

employees of the company, Mr. Hussain denied that either Mr. Roy or Mr.

Murkherjee worked for the company. He suggested that the website had since

been corrected to delete reference to either man. Strangely, Mr. Roy was listed as

having worked for the company since 2000, although it was only formed in 2003.

The website listed Mr. Murkherjee as a twenty-year employee, and this

employment also would have been before the company was formed. The reference

to these two individuals’ employment predating the formation of ICL America

15
Aamer Hussain testified that when he formed his company, International Conveyors
was his only supplier, but by March of 2010, ICL America was purchasing from other conveyor
belt material suppliers. Still, it is clear from the record that International Conveyors remains its
primary supplier, if not the only supplier.

11

raises the question of whether they were associated with International Conveyors

instead of ICL America.

The direct connection between International Conveyors and ICL America

is further set out by statements in International Conveyors’ 2006-2007 annual

report which related to “[o]n-site training and product demonstration at the

customer’s premises”; “Ongoing support and guidance throughout the tenure of

product use”; and “Appointment of M/S Witeck Consultants, Inc., an American

marketing firm, possessing an exhaustive client database that serves as the

intermediary between [International Conveyors] and the Company’s customers in

the USA and Canada.” International Conveyors had no on-site support personnel

and this reference can only be to Aamer Hussain and ICL America. While initially

denying that he was the “support and guidance” person for International Conveyors

and denying knowledge of International Conveyors appointing M/S Witeck

Consultants, Inc., as its intermediary, Aamer Hussain ultimately acknowledged that

he formed that consultant company and that its corporate address was his home

address in East Rockaway, New York.

While denying any connection with ICL America, International Conveyors

saw fit to cause the company to be identified as a certificate holder on a

commercial general-liability insurance policy issued to it by ICICI Lombard

General Insurance Company, Ltd. When questioned why ICL America was a

certificate holder, Mr. Hussain could not answer the question. He simply stated, “I

wouldn’t know, sir. I just know that I’m a certificate holder on a liability insurance

coverage.”

The most telling testimony from Mr. Hussain came when questioned about

his father. Mr. Hussain admitted that he knew his father was involved in the

12

belting industry in India, but claimed not to know the specifics of that involvement.

During the twenty-three years since he left India and despite visiting his family

often, he claims to never have had a discussion with his father concerning his

father’s employment. When questioned about an International Conveyors’

announcement, effective February 14, 2014, that his father was resigning from his

position as director, Mr. Hussain stated, “As far as I know, he was associated with

them, and that’s all I know.” When asked specifically if he knew that his father

was connected to International Conveyors prior to March of 2010, he stated, “The

answer would be yes.”

Summary of the Issues

The end result of our analysis is that we do find that minimum contacts

existed between International Conveyors and the State of Louisiana, such that the

maintenance of suit against it here does not offend traditional notions of fair play

and substantial justice. Southeast Wireless Network, Inc., 954 So.2d 120.

International Conveyors specifically targeted the North American market,

including the entire United States, beginning in 2002. However, it did not target

the end-user market. Instead, it targeted the distributor market, and by 2010, it was

supplying distributors in thirteen different states, who in turn sold the belting
16
material to customers in twenty different states. In deliberately placing its

conveyor belting products into the stream of commerce within the United States,

by selling directly to distributors rather than to end users, International Conveyors

cannot argue that the distributors in the thirteen states or the customers in the

twenty states must limit sales of the products to an intrastate market. Simply stated,

16
International Conveyors knew that the belting it sold would continue in the stream of
commerce because it sold the belting in bulk rolls of 600 feet or longer and sixty inches in width.
The belting remained in bulk until customized by the retail seller pursuant to the purchasing end
user’s specifications.
13

International Conveyors chose the entire North American market and not just

certain states within that market. When International Conveyors provided its

products to the distributors in the thirteen states, neither it nor ICL America placed

any sales limitations on the area those distributors could service. ICL America was

only a middle man or a broker for International Conveyors’ United States sales,

and International Conveyors specifically knew that ICL America and the

distributors, such as Shipp Belting, were not end-users and that its belting would

continue in the stream of commerce until it was finally sold to an end user such as

Peoples Moss Gin.

Considering the agrarian nature of Louisiana, the reputation of the state as a

source of seafood, the location of major ports along the coast and up the mouth of

the Mississippi river, the amount of goods transported on the Mississippi River and

the Intercoastal Canal, and the number of industries located throughout the state, it

is reasonable to expect that there would be a great need for conveyor-belt systems

for the handling of goods in this state, and, necessarily, a great need for belting.

Thus, International Conveyors “reasonably could have expected that” as one of the

largest manufacturers of belting, its belting would be sold to Louisiana customers.

Ainsworth v. Moffett Eng’g, Ltd., 716 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied,

__ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 644 (2013). And, in fact, sixty percent of the PVC 250

belting sold by Shipp Belting was sold to customers in Louisiana.

Based on our finding that International Conveyors delivered its belting into

the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used

by end users in Louisiana, we find that the Legers established the existence of

minimum contacts by International Conveyors purposefully directed to this state,

14

such that it reasonably could have anticipated being haled into court in Louisiana.

Southeast Wireless Network, Inc., 954 So.2d 120.

In light of this finding, it is presumed that jurisdiction is reasonable; thus, the

burden shifts to International Conveyors to prove otherwise. Id. Although

International Conveyors will face a considerable burden in traveling from India to

defend itself in a Louisiana court, we find that its burden is outweighed by the

significant interest Louisiana has “in adjudicating a dispute that involves a sale of

an allegedly defective product to a Louisiana consumer where that product causes

a personal injury in this state.” Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 98-

1126, p. 15 (La. 4/13/99), 731 So.2d 881, 890-91, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1019, 120

S.Ct. 526 (1999). Additionally, International Conveyors is a globally-marketed

company, who in purposefully targeting the North American belting market, has

had the foresight to protect itself from just this eventuality by securing worldwide

commercial-liability insurance coverage, which includes the costs of legal defense.

The facts further reveal that International Conveyors has attempted to shield

itself from suit in forums such as Louisiana by the placement of a straw man

between itself and the distributors and end users of its products. However, the

evidence is overwhelming that a connection exists between International

Conveyors and ICL America. Without repeating that which has already been

stated, we simply note that the testimony of Mr. Hussain was totally unbelievable.

Throughout the deposition, Mr. Hussain was very evasive in his answers and

purported to know little or nothing about his own company, much less

International Conveyors. It was necessary to pull out an admission from him

concerning his father’s relationship with International Conveyors, but even then,

he continued to deny the connection between the two companies.

15

Considering this evidence, we find that a relationship exists between

International Conveyors and ICL America, such that the placement of ICL

America as a middle man between International Conveyors and its customers will

not shield it from the exercise of jurisdiction in this matter.

Accordingly, we find that the Legers’ and Louisiana’s interests in

adjudicating this matter in Louisiana, far outweighs any burden that International

Conveyors might bear in defending itself in court here.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of the exception

of lack of personal jurisdiction in favor of International Conveyors Limited and the

dismissal of the claims of Huey and Gwen Leger against that defendant; and we

remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. We assess all costs of

this appeal to International Conveyors Limited.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

16