255 So. 3d 423
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Richard and Nancy Ghilotti (Co-Personal Representatives of Dino R. Ghilotti’s estate) sued California-based insurance broker Woodruff-Sawyer alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for procuring allegedly inadequate automobile/underinsured motorist coverage for the Decedent, who died in Florida.
- The amended complaint alleged Woodruff-Sawyer: transacted business in Florida, designated a Florida registered agent, and committed tortious acts aimed at Florida residents; it also alleged contractual expectations that the Decedent (a Florida resident/student) would be covered.
- Woodruff-Sawyer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting an affidavit that procurement activities and communications occurred in California and policies were issued to a California company.
- The trial court denied the motion; Woodruff-Sawyer appealed. The Ghilottis cross-appealed several interlocutory rulings, which the appellate court later found moot after reversing on jurisdiction.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo under the Venetian Salami two-prong test: (1) whether the complaint invoked Florida’s long-arm statute, and (2) whether asserting jurisdiction satisfies federal due process (minimum contacts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida courts have general jurisdiction over Woodruff-Sawyer | Registration to do business and appointment of a Florida registered agent constitute consent / sufficient contacts for general jurisdiction | Woodruff-Sawyer is neither incorporated nor headquartered in Florida; registration alone is insufficient and activities are not continuous/systematic | No general jurisdiction: complaint fails to allege "substantial and not isolated" Florida activity; Daimler/Goodyear standard not met |
| Whether Florida's long-arm statute (48.193) is satisfied under tort prong (1)(a)(2) | Woodruff-Sawyer committed tortious acts in Florida by directing conduct toward Florida residents and the Decedent | All procurement and communications occurred in California; affidavit unrebutted; no sufficient nexus to Florida | No: plaintiffs failed to allege facts connecting broker’s in-California conduct to tortious acts in Florida; connexity lacking |
| Whether long-arm statute is satisfied under contract prong (1)(a)(7) | Breach/failure to perform contract acts in Florida (policies should have covered Decedent in Florida) | Complaint does not track statutory language; affidavit contests performance in Florida and is unrebutted | No: complaint does not plead required factual basis and affidavit rebutted any Florida performance allegation |
| Whether specific jurisdiction satisfies due process (minimum contacts) | Foreseeability of harm to Florida resident and insured’s Florida presence support specific jurisdiction | Defendant’s relevant conduct occurred entirely in California; plaintiff cannot be sole link to forum | No: specific jurisdiction fails under Walden/Bristol-Myers; foreseeability alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-prong long-arm / due process framework)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (out-of-state communications can constitute tortious act in Florida but require connexity)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires contacts rendering defendant "essentially at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (limits on general jurisdiction based on forum affiliations)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (plaintiff cannot be the only link between defendant and forum for specific jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and the specific claims)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (reinforcing narrow scope of general jurisdiction)
- White v. PepsiCo, 568 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1990) (addressed sufficiency of service under state statute; not dispositive on due process)
- Rose's Stores, Inc. v. Cherry, 526 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1988) (older precedent on jurisdiction subsequently limited by later Supreme Court decisions)