It\’s usually a question of whether the plaintiff availed themselves of the laws and protection of the State in the course of their business. If they had a contract with the Floridian broker, I\’d say Florida would probably accept jurisdiction if there were an action against him. If there\’s no action against the broker, there SHOULDN\’T be any jurisdiction in Florida.
It is imperative that Florida\’s contractors, suppliers, and assorted vendors, who render legitimate services in \”good faith\” while anticipating reimbursement from insurance proceeds, be protected from the inherent fraud perpetrated by \”Unauthorized Entities\” and their representatives. Consequently, the Florida DFS should move massively and swiftly in utilizing its awesome enforcement powers to protect the public- at-large; by issuing \”Immediate Final \’Cease and Desist\’ Orders\”, felony arraignments, and severe fines against the brazen \”Unauthorized Entities\”, as well as their felonius representatives. These \”problems\” don\’t happen within an invisible vacuum.
Of course, we don\’t have all of the facts, as the article doesn\’t contain them. But, it appears to me that the plaintiff was not a Florida resident, nor did the transaction take place purely in Florida. Note that the brokers involved in placing the coverage were also in Britain and Turkey (?!).
Also, the FLSC didn\’t say that the plaintiff doesn\’t have a claim. What they say is that the claim can\’t be brought in FL courts under the law/cause of action being pled, as the statute prohibits it. Which makes sense. Its an unauhorized carrier and a non-resident. Why would the taxpayers of FL want this to clog up their courts?
Either file in the state where the carrier is admitted or authorized, file in the plaintiff\’s own country of residence, or file in U.S. District Court if there is no other jurisdiction and the case involves at least one U.S. defendant.
I\’m not familiar with all the facts, and have not read the decision, but drawing a distinction solely on the basis of resident versus nonresident in deciding who can avail themselves of the Florida Judicial System seems to raise some real problems under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution (as well as the Interstate Commerce Clause, to the extent the discrimination puts an undue burden on nonresidents trying to do business in Florida). Are you QUITE sure that that was the basis of the Florida Supreme Court\’s decision — not some other reason such as inability to obtain personal jurisdiction over the Defendant? I do remember the Florida Supreme Court\’s appalling performance in Gore vs. Bush, but that level of provincialism is really frightening.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Yep – it is OK to screw an insurance customer, unless they are a resident of the state. Doesn\’t seem right somehow!
It\’s usually a question of whether the plaintiff availed themselves of the laws and protection of the State in the course of their business. If they had a contract with the Floridian broker, I\’d say Florida would probably accept jurisdiction if there were an action against him. If there\’s no action against the broker, there SHOULDN\’T be any jurisdiction in Florida.
Doesn\’t it matter that premium taxes would have been paid by the insured to the state?
Did the application ask if he was a Florida resident?
The problems that this creates for agents is huge.
It is imperative that Florida\’s contractors, suppliers, and assorted vendors, who render legitimate services in \”good faith\” while anticipating reimbursement from insurance proceeds, be protected from the inherent fraud perpetrated by \”Unauthorized Entities\” and their representatives. Consequently, the Florida DFS should move massively and swiftly in utilizing its awesome enforcement powers to protect the public- at-large; by issuing \”Immediate Final \’Cease and Desist\’ Orders\”, felony arraignments, and severe fines against the brazen \”Unauthorized Entities\”, as well as their felonius representatives. These \”problems\” don\’t happen within an invisible vacuum.
Of course, we don\’t have all of the facts, as the article doesn\’t contain them. But, it appears to me that the plaintiff was not a Florida resident, nor did the transaction take place purely in Florida. Note that the brokers involved in placing the coverage were also in Britain and Turkey (?!).
Also, the FLSC didn\’t say that the plaintiff doesn\’t have a claim. What they say is that the claim can\’t be brought in FL courts under the law/cause of action being pled, as the statute prohibits it. Which makes sense. Its an unauhorized carrier and a non-resident. Why would the taxpayers of FL want this to clog up their courts?
Either file in the state where the carrier is admitted or authorized, file in the plaintiff\’s own country of residence, or file in U.S. District Court if there is no other jurisdiction and the case involves at least one U.S. defendant.
I\’m not familiar with all the facts, and have not read the decision, but drawing a distinction solely on the basis of resident versus nonresident in deciding who can avail themselves of the Florida Judicial System seems to raise some real problems under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution (as well as the Interstate Commerce Clause, to the extent the discrimination puts an undue burden on nonresidents trying to do business in Florida). Are you QUITE sure that that was the basis of the Florida Supreme Court\’s decision — not some other reason such as inability to obtain personal jurisdiction over the Defendant? I do remember the Florida Supreme Court\’s appalling performance in Gore vs. Bush, but that level of provincialism is really frightening.