129 So. 3d 415
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Gutierrez sued shipboard physician Dr. Chris Taylor (British citizen) and Royal Caribbean in Florida state court after treatment aboard a cruise led to severe complications; plaintiff does not allege treatment in Florida waters.
- Dr. Taylor worked for Florida-based cruise lines for ~9 years, lived/worked aboard foreign-flagged ships, had contracts executed with Florida companies, attended training/conferences in Florida, maintained two Bank of America accounts using a Miami address, and the ship returned to a Florida home port one day weekly.
- Jurisdictional discovery and depositions produced testimony that clinic hours at embarkation/disembarkation were limited, the infirmary was generally closed in the morning at port, but emergencies or limited crew treatment could occur while the ship was in Florida territorial waters.
- The trial court denied Dr. Taylor’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding general jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2) based on his recurring contacts with Florida related to his shipboard practice.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and concluded the contacts were not "continuous and systematic" to support general jurisdiction under Florida law or federal due process, reversed the denial, and directed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida courts have general personal jurisdiction over Dr. Taylor under § 48.193(2) | Dr. Taylor’s repeated contractual, professional, training, banking, and shipboard presence tied to Florida-based cruise lines constitute "substantial and not isolated activity" | Contacts (contracts, conferences, minimal bank use, weekly port presence) are incidental/insufficient; physician is nonresident working aboard a foreign-flagged ship | Reversed — contacts not continuous and systematic; § 48.193(2) not satisfied and due process bars general jurisdiction |
| Whether limited in-port treatment or emergency care in Florida territorial waters establishes continuous/systematic contacts | Plaintiff contends on-duty treatment while ship in Florida waters supports jurisdiction | Defendant says such in-Florida treatment is infrequent, limited, and not regular enough to support general jurisdiction | Held: Infrequent/emergency/limited clinic hours do not meet the high threshold for general jurisdiction |
| Whether contractual ties (agreements with Florida cruise lines, forum/indemnity clauses) alone confer general jurisdiction | Plaintiff argues Florida contracts tie Dr. Taylor to Florida forum | Defendant notes contracts are standard, signed at sea, he’s an independent contractor, and forum/indemnity clauses don’t create general jurisdiction | Held: Contract execution and forum/indemnity clauses do not alone confer general jurisdiction |
| Whether federal due process (Helicopteros/continuous & systematic test) permits general jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserts purposeful availment through recurring services in Florida waters | Defendant argues federal due process requires extensive, pervasive ties (e.g., licensure, property, significant business in state) absent here | Held: Due process not satisfied — contacts fall short of continuous and systematic standard |
Key Cases Cited
- E & H Cruises, Ltd. v. Baker, 88 So.3d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (attendance at Florida conventions and incidental contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- American Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson, 632 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (general jurisdiction requires a higher, continuous and systematic contacts threshold)
- Biloki v. Majestic Greeting Card Co., Inc., 33 So.3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (employment agreements in Florida alone insufficient to establish general jurisdiction)
- Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So.3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (substantial, continuous, and systematic business contacts required for long-arm and due process)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (occasional business dealings and single trips insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Dean v. Johns, 789 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (contrasting example where extensive treatment of Florida patients, licensure, property, and regular Florida referrals supported general jurisdiction)