Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 28 (1990)
A foreign corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York if it engages in a continuous and systematic course of doing business there, establishing its presence in the state with a fair measure of permanence and continuity.
Summary
Landoil, a Philippine construction company, sued Alexander, a US insurance broker, for failing to procure adequate political risk insurance. Alexander impleaded Lloyd’s Syndicate 317, a group of London-based insurance underwriters, for indemnification. Syndicate 317 moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it did no business in New York. The New York Court of Appeals held that Syndicate 317 was not subject to jurisdiction under CPLR 301 because its contacts with New York, including underwriting policies for New York insureds and indirect benefits from a trust fund in New York, did not constitute a continuous and systematic course of doing business in the state.
Facts
Landoil requested Alexander to obtain political risk insurance for its operations in the Middle East and Africa.
Alexander, not a registered Lloyd’s broker, negotiated policies in London with Lloyd’s underwriters, including Syndicate 317.
Disputes arose over coverage, leading to arbitration in London, which Alexander did not participate in.
Landoil sued Alexander in the United States District Court, and Alexander filed a third-party complaint against Syndicate 317 and other Lloyd’s underwriters.
Syndicate 317 moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The District Court denied Syndicate 317’s motion to dismiss, finding that Syndicate 317 was “doing business” in New York due to the existence of the American Trust Fund held at Citibank.
Syndicate 317 appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Second Circuit certified the question of whether Syndicate 317 was