THOMAS E. WILKS, APPELLANT,
v.
SWIFT AND COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND ESMARK, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Wilks sued his former employer Swift and its parent company Esmark for denial of pension benefits. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Esmark, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Florida's long-arm statute reached Esmark because it breached a contract to pay pension benefits that were to be performed in Florida.
Florida's long-arm statute, specifically section 48.193(1)(g), reaches Esmark because Esmark breached a contract by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in Florida (payment of pension benefits in Jacksonville). Therefore, Esmark is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.
[1] A foreign corporation may be subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida under the long-arm statute for breaching a contract in Florida by failing to perform acts require…
[2] A pension plan administered by a parent corporation, covering employees of its subsidiary, and requiring benefit payments within the state, can subject the parent corpora…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 48.193(l)(g), Fla.Stat., provides that a person submits himself to jurisdiction in this state if he 'breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.'”
Establishes the statutory basis for long-arm jurisdiction over contract breaches where performance is required in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilks was employed by Swift and Company, a subsidiary of Esmark, Inc. Both companies are foreign corporations. Wilks was covered under the Esmark Pens…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pension Plan Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant Wilks appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint as to appellee Esmark on the ground of lack of in personam jurisdiction. ' We find that the Florida long-arm statute does reach Esmark in this case and, therefore, we reverse.
Appellant filed a complaint against two foreign corporations — his employer, Swift and Swift’s parent company, Esmark— seeking relief from a denial of pension benefits. In its answer, Esmark moved to dismiss the complaint as to it, asserting insufficient contacts with the state. The record shows that Swift does business in Florida. The pension plan under which appellant was covered was entitled “Esmark Pension Plan.” The plan covered employees of Es-mark or any of its participating U.S. subsidiary companies, of which Swift was one. A printed pamphlet explaining the pension plan to employees is contained in the record. That pamphlet shows:
Esmark, Inc., administers the Plan and acts as the Plan fiduciary. The board of directors of Esmark, Inc., appoints the members of the Pension Board annually. The Pension Board consists of four members. This Board acts for Esmark, Inc., in administering the Plan. Although the Pension Board cannot alter the terms, conditions or benefits of the Plan, it does make the decisions regarding questions, interpretations and application of any Plan provisions.
All of the Plan’s funds are held in the Esmark, Inc., Pension Trust under a trust agreement with Bankers Trust Company of New York.
Appellant’s uncontradicted affidavit in the record shows that “all pension benefits were to be paid in Jacksonville.”
Section 48.193(l)(g), Fla.Stat., provides that a person submits himself to jurisdiction in this state if he “breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.” Appellant’s complaint alleged that Esmark breached its contract with appellant regarding the pension plan, and his affidavit alleged that the pension benefits were to be paid in Jacksonville, Florida. Appellant’s pleadings were sufficient to subject Esmark to in personam jurisdiction in Florida pursuant to § 48.193(l)(g). In contending that the long-arm statute does not reach it, Esmark argues that the trustee of the pension plan trust may be a necessary party in this suit, a question which is not properly before us at this time and upon which we make no ruling; nevertheless, Esmark is a proper party at this point and is subject to jurisdiction in the State of Florida pursuant to the above-cited authorities.
REVERSED.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Engineered Storage Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ied pursuant to Section 48.193(l)(g), the court need not determine whether the defendant also operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business in the state pursuant to Section 48.193(l)(a), Florida Statute (1979). Wilks v. Swift and Company, 382 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Professional Patient Transportation, Inc. v. Fink, 365 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Madax International Corporation v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Services, Inc., supra; First National Bank of Kissimmee v. Dunham, 342 So.…
-
Garrett Blake Beaubien v. Cambridge Consol., Ltd., 652 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ent to show a breach of trust may have occurred in Florida, regarding trust assets held in Florida, by the activities of the trust’s managing agent here for its failure to account for trust assets. § 48.193(b), Fla.Stat.; Wilks v. Swift and Company, 382 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).6 In Carr’s affidavit filed in support of his motion to dismiss, he alleged that Cambridge has never done business in Florida, has no Florida office, and has no agency or presence in this state. No counter-affidavits were filed…
-
Mary Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. Se. First Leasing, Inc., 399 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Wilks v. Swift & Co., 382 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1st DCA 1980); Professional [*544] Patient Transportation, Inc. v. Fink, 365 So. 2d 209 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Madax International Corp. v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Services, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence