20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 425a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2004TARRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Jurisdiction — Nonresidents — Substantial activity within state — There is no basis for Florida court to exercise personal jurisdiction over insurer that is foreign corporation which does not operate, conduct or engage in business within state and which issued policy to nonresident insured who was involved in accident in Florida
GAIL R. TARR, Plaintiff, vs. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County. Case No. 51-2011-SC-000999WS, Division S. December 19, 2012. Paul E. Firmani, Judge. Counsel: Eduardo R. Latour, Latour & Associates, P.A., Tarpon Springs, for Plaintiff. Frantz Nelson, Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A., Hollywood, for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the Court for hearing on December 14th, 2012 upon the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the Court having considered the arguments of the parties and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
The basis for the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the Defendant under the criteria of Fla. Stat. 48.193.
Specifically the Defendant is a foreign corporation that issued a policy to the Plaintiff who herself is a New Jersey resident.
While the Plaintiff acknowledges that the motor vehicle accident that led to the claim for PIP benefits occurred in Pasco County, the Defendant argues it is a foreign corporation which does not operate, conduct or engage in the carrying on of a business or business venture in the State of Florida. As such the Defendant is not engaged in substantial activity within this State and therefore there is no basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
The Court has reviewed the case law provided by the parties, particularly Kight v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, 441 So.2d 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Meyer v. Auto Club Insurance Association, 492 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 1986) and Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Sheliah Meador, 467 So.2d 471, (5th DCA 1985).
The Court finds that under the facts of this particular case and the criteria set out under the above cited case law, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the Defendant and therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. The Court finds that the Defendant is therefore the prevailing party in this lawsuit and reserves jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs at a subsequent hearing.
* * *
