Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. M&C Express Transport, Inc., 5:24-cv-00446

Westchester Fire Insurance Company filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Valued Commodities Transportation, Inc. and others on August 23, 2024.
Westchester initially moved for clerk’s default based on Valued Commodities’ failure to respond, claiming proper service via substituted service through the Florida Secretary of State.
The court denied the first motion without prejudice due to insufficient briefing and lack of proof that Westchester met Florida's requirements for substituted service.
Westchester renewed its motion, providing extensive documentation of its unsuccessful attempts to serve Valued Commodities’ registered agent, Richardson Boco, at multiple addresses, including locations in Florida and Georgia.
Westchester ultimately effected substituted service on the Florida Secretary of State and filed an affidavit of compliance, as required by law.
Valued Commodities did not respond to the complaint or otherwise appear in the litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service on Valued Commodities properly effected?	Westchester complied with due diligence and statutory process.	No response or argument presented.	Plaintiff's substituted service was legally sufficient.
Is clerk’s default warranted?	Default is appropriate due to lack of response by defendant.	No response or argument presented.	Clerk’s default was ordered against Valued Commodities.
Did Westchester exercise due diligence?	Multiple, documented attempts to serve registered agent.	No response or argument presented.	Due diligence was exercised as required by law.
Was the statute’s affidavit and notice requirement met?	All procedural requirements (including notice and affidavits) satisfied.	No response or argument presented.	Affidavit and procedural requirements satisfactorily met.

Kelly v. Florida, 233 F. App’x 883 (11th Cir. 2007) (clarifies necessity of proper service for jurisdiction and default)
George Fisher, Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc., 379 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (strict compliance required for substituted service)
Elmex Corp. v. Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Ft. Lauderdale, 325 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (burden of proof for substituted service is on plaintiff)