13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 561a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Service of process — Where statute provides that service upon chief financial officer shall be sole method of service of process upon insurer, service on insurer’s registered agent was not binding or valid, and trial court never had personal jurisdiction over insurer
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. JENNIFER ORTIZ, Appellee. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 502005AP000010XXXXMB, Division ‘AY’. L.T. Case No. 502003CC14223XXCVRF. March 20, 2006. Appeal from the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Judge Joseph Marx. Counsel: Daniel Santaniello and Angelina C. Capece, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Jason D. Weisser and Diego C. Asencio, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant, her PIP insurer, for failure to pay PIP benefits. Appellee served Appellant’s registered agent with the summons and complaint. However, section 624.422(2), Florida Statutes, provides that the Chief Financial Officer, as the insurer’s attorney, “shall be the sole method of service of process. . .” upon an insurer in this State. (Emphasis added). Statutes that govern service of process are to be strictly construed to ensure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings. Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella & Associates, P.A., 906 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “Absent strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. at 1207; citing Sierra Holding v. Inn Keepers Supply, 464 So.2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Failure to serve the Chief Financial Officer with the summons and complaint was fatal to Appellee’s case. See, Morris v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 184 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) and Home Life Ins. Co. v. Regueira, 243 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Therefore, service of process on the registered agent was not binding or valid.
Since the lower court never had personal jurisdiction over Appellant, this Court declines to address the remaining issues raised on appeal. The decision of the lower court is REVERSED and the case shall be REMANDED. (FINE, HOY and GERBER, JJ., concur.)
* * *
