377 U.S. 179 (1964)
The petitioner, a citizen and resident of Illinois, purchased the insurance policy from the respondent, a British company licensed to do business in Illinois, Florida, and several other States.1 The policy was described on its face as a Personal Property Floater Policy providing worldwide coverage.2
A few months after purchasing the policy, the petitioner moved to Florida and became a citizen and resident of that State.3 It was in Florida that the loss occurred two years later.4 The petitioner invoked the diversity jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in Florida to recover damages under the insurance policy.5
The case was previously before the Supreme Court.6 On remand the Court of Appeals certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court, which answered both in the petitioner's favor.7 Thereafter the Court of Appeals held that judgment should be entered for the respondent, prompting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari once more.8
Whether the 12-month-suit clause in the policy governs, in which event the claim is barred?9
The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause permit a forum state with sufficient contacts to apply its own statute of limitations to an ambulatory insurance contract made in another state.10 A forum state need not enforce a shorter contractual limitations period under such circumstances.11
No. The Court deals with an ambulatory contract on which suit might be brought in any one of several States.12 Normally a State having jurisdiction over a claim deriving from an out-of-state contract need not substitute the conflicting statute of the other State for its own statute.13 Florida has ample contacts with the present transaction and the parties to satisfy any conceivable requirement of full faith and credit or of due process.14
The 12-month-suit clause does not govern the claim.15
Whether Florida’s statutes nullifying such clauses if they require suit to be filed in less than five years are applicable and valid, in which event the suit is timely?16
A state may apply its own statutes nullifying contractual suit clauses shorter than five years when the state has significant contacts with the parties and the occurrence giving rise to the claim.17
Yes. The policy was a Personal Property Floater Policy sold with knowledge that the insured could take his property anywhere.18 Petitioner moved to Florida where the loss occurred two years later and respondent was licensed to do business in Florida.19 These contacts make Florida’s statutes applicable and the suit timely under the five-year period.20
Florida’s statutes are applicable and valid, making the suit timely.21
Whether consistently with due process, Florida could apply its five-year statute to this Illinois contract?22
Due process permits application of the forum state’s statute when the forum has substantial contacts with the transaction and parties, distinguishing cases where contacts are too slight or wholly lacking.23
Yes. Unlike Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co. and Home Ins. Co. v. Dick where activities in the forum were too slight and too casual or wholly lacking, here the insured resided in Florida at the time of loss, the insurer was licensed there, and the policy covered worldwide risks.24 Florida therefore could apply its five-year statute consistently with due process.25
Florida could consistently with due process apply its five-year statute to this Illinois contract.26