Taylor v. CMI Ins. Co. Ltd.
Filed 4/11/06 Taylor v. CMI Ins. Co. Ltd. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| RODERICK TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CMI INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B179402 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC298837) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. George H. Wu, Judge. Affirmed
Law Offices of Bernie Bernheim, Bernie Bernheim, Joshua H. Haffner, Alfredo Torrijos and Justin A. Shiau for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Latham & Watkins, Alan B. Clark and Russell B. Wuehler for Defendants and Respondents.
* * * * * *
We consider whether the California courts have personal jurisdiction over the defendant and respondent, CMI Insurance Company Ltd. (CMI), an Isle of Man corporation, for causes of action pertaining to CMI life insurance policies that were purchased by Cook Island trusts and that insured the lives of Cook Island residents. The trusts were created and funded by plaintiffs and appellants, Roderick and Krista Taylor (Taylor), California residents, for the purpose of protecting their assets through off-shore investments. The trial court determined that Taylor failed to demonstrate that CMI had sufficient minimum contacts with California to support jurisdiction. Because we find insufficient evidence of any authorized act by a CMI agent with respect to Taylor, we affirm the trial court's order granting CMI's motion to quash service of summons and dismissing the action.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the substantial evidence standard of review discussed infra, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the order of dismissal, resolving evidentiary conflicts in its favor. (Kotler v. Alma Lodge (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1383, fn. 1.)
The Parties
CMI is an insurance company headquartered and organized under the laws of the Isle of Man. CMI's sole avenue for marketing its insurance products is through master distributors or introducers that are authorized to market but not sell CMI products. CMI has a policy against doing business in the United States.
Interglobe Financial Consultants (Interglobe U.K.) is a London-based financial consulting company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Interglobe U.K. acts as one of CMI's master distributors. The standard master distributor contract between CMI and Interglobe U.K. states that Interglobe U.K. is not CMI's agent. Both Interglobe U.K. and its principal, Lewis Bloch, were aware of CMI's policy against doing business in the United States and were explicitly asked not to promote or sell CMI products to U.S. residents.
Bloch had an undefined association with Interglobe Asset Protection Specialists (Interglobe U.S.), a division of California-based Gerber Financial Management. CMI and Interglobe U.S. had no direct relationship or contact. The principals of Interglobe U.S., Selwyn Gerber and Stanley Chesed, admittedly were not the agents of CMI. Gerber and Chesed were aware of CMI's policy against doing business in the United States. Gerber was Taylor's business manager.
California Activities
In 1998, Gerber recommended that Taylor attend an asset protection seminar in Beverly Hills sponsored and paid for by Gerber's firm, Interglobe U.S. Gerber was building a network of specialists in international investment strategies and structures in order to provide his existing clients, including Taylor, with asset protection and tax and estate planning options not available to them domestically. For that purpose, Gerber's firm conducted approximately five seminars in California targeting a professional audience, during which nine to fourteen legal and accounting specialists discussed various off-shore strategies and structures. Each seminar also included one presentation on foreign investment opportunities.
Bloch of Interglobe U.K. presented the investment opportunities portion at the first California seminar along with Chesed of Interglobe U.S. Chesed alone presented the investment opportunities portion of the Beverly Hills seminar attended by Taylor.
Bloch and Chesed employed a PowerPoint program and a brochure, prepared by Bloch, during their presentations. Among the investment products mentioned were the CMI products at issue. These were â€
