ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER OF THE CAROLINAS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
NORTHWEST OXYGEN, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alexander & Alexander, a North Carolina insurance agency, appeals a denial of its motion to quash service of process and dismiss an action brought by Northwest Oxygen, a fellow North Carolina corporation, in a Florida court. The court reversed and ordered dismissal, finding that the defendant lacked minimum contacts with Florida and service of process was improper.
The court held that personal jurisdiction was lacking and reversed the trial court's denial of Alexander's motion to quash service and dismiss. Alexander, as an insurance agency rather than an insurer, had no minimum contacts with Florida and did not do business in the state, and the underlying tort claim arose in North Carolina where both parties were residents.
[1] A foreign corporation's mere servicing of an insurance policy after a client relocates does not establish minimum contacts with the state sufficient to support personal j…
[2] Service of process under Florida Statute section 48.181 is not authorized when a foreign corporation does not engage in business in Florida with the intent to do so.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Alexander has no minimum contacts with the State of Florida which can support the exercise of Florida court jurisdiction.”
The court's conclusion that personal jurisdiction was absent under constitutional due process standards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander & Alexander is a North Carolina insurance agency that procured an insurance policy for Northwest Oxygen when Northwest was based in North Ca…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Minimum Contacts cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a non-final order denying the Appellant’s Motion to Quash Process, Service of Process, and to Dismiss.
Appellant, Alexander & Alexander of the Carolinas, Inc., “Alexander”, is a North Carolina corporation which procures insurance contracts for its clients. It is an insurance agency, not an insurance company. Appellee, Northwest Oxygen, Inc., “Northwest”, is also a North Carolina corporation which sells and services medical equipment and maintains its home office in Tampa, Florida. Northwest was previously home based in North Carolina and entered into its business relationship with Alexander there.
In January, 1987, a Northwest owned vehicle was burglarized in Hillsborough County resulting in the theft of equipment valued at $40,000.00. The insurance policy which Alexander had procured for Northwest covered only one-half of the loss. Northwest brought suit against Alexander in Hillsborough County, asserting Alexander was negligent in the procurement of the policy and having violated a fiduciary duty owed to Northwest. The amended complaint contains a bare assertion that Alexander does business in Hillsborough County, and as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i), a reference to section 48.193(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), as the basis for service on a non-resident. Northwest did not perfect service of process pursuant to section 48.194, Florida Statutes, as is contemplated by section 48.-193, but rather served the Secretary of State pursuant to section 48.161. Northwest apparently relied on section 48.181, Florida Statutes, rather than section 48.-193(l)(d). Alexander attacked personal jurisdiction by way of an appropriate motion which was denied.
We reverse and direct the trial court to enter an order dismissing the action.
The record reflects that the subject insurance policy was procured for Northwest when Northwest’s home office was in North Carolina. Although Alexander continued to service the policy after Northwest moved to Florida, Alexander advised Northwest that it would not renew the policy and that Northwest should find an insurance agent in Florida. It is clear that Alexander did not do business in Florida and had no intent to begin. Service of process pursuant to section 48.181, Florida Statutes, was not authorized. Likewise, service would not be proper under any provision of section 48.193. As an insurance agency, Alexander did not insure a risk within the State of Florida, but rather brought Northwest together with an insurance company that did. If a tort was committed in the procurement of the policy, that tort was committed at the time the insurance policy was obtained in North Carolina and both parties were North Carolina residents. This is clearly a dispute between two North Carolina corporations; Alexander has no minimum contacts with the State of Florida which can support the exercise of Florida court jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286,100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); South Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association v. Underwood, 527 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bookman v. KAH Inc., Inc., 614 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989); Alexander & Alexander of the Carolinas, Inc. v. Northwest Oxygen, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); and American Community Mutual Insurance Co. v. Naples Research and Counseling Center, Inc., 534 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). According to this established case law, due process requires that in order to subject nonresident def…
-
Psihogios v. State, 544 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We have also determined that a defendant may not be convicted of both the sale and possession of the same cocaine at the same time and place. Brazell v. State, 532 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accord Vargas v. State, 541 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Blanca v. State, 532 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Carawan v. State, the supreme court described the analysis, reasoning, and tests to be applied in determining whether the legislature intended dual punishments to be impose…
Authorities Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980)
- S.C. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Underwood, 527 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)