## Facts

- Daniel L. Uffner, Jr. owned the sailing yacht *La Mer* and obtained an all-risk marine insurance policy underwritten and issued by La Réunion Française, S.A., T.L. Dallas & Co. Ltd., and Schaeffer & Associates, Inc.
- On June 14, 1997, *La Mer* departed from Fajardo, Puerto Rico, bound for St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
- Near Isla Palominos, Puerto Rico, a fire broke out in the engine room; Uffner abandoned ship, and the yacht sank in Puerto Rican waters.
- Uffner reported the loss through his broker and submitted an insurance claim; the insurers denied coverage, citing an alleged lack of a “current out-of-water survey.”
- Uffner filed a diversity action in the District of Puerto Rico alleging bad-faith denial of coverage and seeking damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court could dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction when defendants did not raise that defense in their Rule 12 motion.
2. Whether venue in the District of Puerto Rico was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) as a district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred.

## Decision

- The First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded.
- The district court erred by dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction because defendants waived that defense by not timely asserting it under Rule 12.
- The district court erred in finding venue improper; the sinking of the insured yacht in Puerto Rican waters constituted a substantial part of the events giving rise to the coverage and bad-faith dispute under § 1391(a)(2).
- The venue inquiry did not require identifying a single “triggering event”; multiple districts may satisfy the “substantial part” standard based on the full sequence of events underlying the claim.

## Legal Principles

- Lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense; it is forfeited if not raised in the first Rule 12 motion or responsive pleading as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- A court generally should not dismiss sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendant has appeared and failed to assert the defense.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), venue is proper in any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; the statute does not confine venue to the location of a single decisive act.
- In an insurance dispute about a covered loss, the location of the casualty can be a substantial event for venue purposes even if the policy issuance and claim denial occurred elsewhere.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that defendants waived any personal-jurisdiction objection by omitting it from their Rule 12 motion and that venue was proper in Puerto Rico because the insured loss—the yacht’s sinking in Puerto Rican waters—was a substantial event giving rise to the coverage and bad-faith claims, requiring vacatur and remand.


Uffner v. La Réunion Française, S.A., 244 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2001)