50 So. 3d 62
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Nonresident Airgas employees Hurt, Brock, Moore, Weiss, and Beck were sued in Florida for negligent training/supervision relating to a Florida-based Bartow facility incident.
- Dickey, Airgas’s driver, allegedly caused a fatal collision in Florida, prompting wrongful death claims against Airgas and the individual employees.
- Plaintiffs asserted the corporate shield doctrine did not apply because acts were committed in Florida to benefit the employer.
- Appellants moved to quash service and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; affidavits asserted residence outside Florida and employment within Florida-related duties.
- Trial court denied the motions; on de novo review, court reverse-sought to apply corporate shield and analyze jurisdiction under Florida long-arm statute.
- The court ultimately reversed, remanded to vacate denial, and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does corporate shield bar personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporate agents who act in Florida for their employer? | Doe controls; shield prevents personal jurisdiction for acts performed for employer. | Corporate shield should apply only where acts occur outside Florida; here acts were in Florida. | Yes, corporate shield precludes personal jurisdiction here. |
| Did the plaintiffs satisfy the statutory prong of Florida's long-arm statute (section 48.193(1)(b))? | Defendants personally committed torts in Florida; long-arm applies. | The acts were performed in Florida on behalf of employer; shield applies; no personal acts by defendants. | Statutory prong not satisfied due to corporate shield. |
| Does Doe v. Thompson apply to extend shield to individuals who personally commit acts in Florida for their employer? | Doe should be read to limit personal jurisdiction; shield protects individuals acting for employer. | Doe is distinguishable; here individuals personally present in Florida allegedly tortious. | Doe governs; shield extends to protect individuals acting for employer in Florida; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1993) (adopts corporate shield doctrine; personal jurisdiction limited for fiduciaries acting for employer)
- Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899 (2d Cir.1981) (fiduciary shield rationale; not constitutional shield; liability vs. jurisdiction distinction)
- Krilich v. Wolcott, 717 So.2d 582 (Fla.1998) (recognizes minimum contacts principle in Florida long-arm context)
- Oesterle v. Farish, 887 So.2d 412 (Fla.4th DCA 2004) (refuses shield applicability when nonresident acts in Florida outside corporate scope)
- Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So.2d 808 (Fla.1958) (early long-arm jurisdiction decision informing fiduciary shield concept)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989) (two-step inquiry for Florida long-arm jurisdiction)