Skip to main content

Non-Resident Defendants Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Florida

In KITROSER v. HURT,  37 Fla. L. Weekly S237a (Fla. Mar. 22, 2012), the Fourth District Court of Appeals (50 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)) issued an application for review of its decision certifying an issue of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, to wit,

WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL, NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT COMMITS NEGLIGENT ACTS IN FLORIDA ON BEHALF OF HIS CORPORATE EMPLOYER, DOES THE CORPORATE SHIELD DOCTRINE OPERATE AS A BAR TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FLORIDA OVER THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT?

The Florida Supreme Court  held that "[w]here an individual, nonresident defendant commits negligent acts in Florida, whether on behalf of a corporate employer or not, the corporate shield doctrine does not operate as a bar to personal jurisdiction in Florida over the individual defendant." The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff alleged without controversion that while the defendant's employees were personally in Florida, each engaged in some form of negligent conduct, either by training or supervision which contributed to a death. The defendant's employees did not contest that they were in Florida, nor did they contest that they engaged in some form of conduct, training, or supervision of another employee in Florida. As a result, the Florida Supreme Court that "[t]he corporate shield doctrine, therefore, is inapplicable and does not exclude the [defendant's] employees from the exercise of personal jurisdiction by Florida courts."

This decision is important, as there are various decisions in Florida which suggest "that nonresident corporate defendants will not be subject to Florida's long-arm statute despite acting tortiously in Florida because their acts were performed on behalf of corporate employers." These decisions include Radcliffe v. Gyves, 902 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and Snibbe v. Napoleonic Society of America, 682 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The Florida Supreme Court specifically disapproved these decision to the extent they may so suggest.

If you are interested in receiving a complete copy of this decision, please feel free to contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net or mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more