PHILIP HIGGINS, APPELLANT,
v.
EULOGIO GARCIA, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of motion to quash service of process, holding that a corporate officer appearing solely as a corporate representative at a deposition is immune from personal service of process during that appearance.
A corporate officer who appears at a deposition solely as a representative of the defendant corporation is immune from personal service of process during that appearance, and an off-the-record agreement to answer personal questions does not waive that immunity.
[1] A corporate officer appearing at a deposition solely as a representative of the defendant corporation is immune from personal service of process during that appearance, a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia sued Solimar Corporation and its officer Higgins for breach of contract and fraud. Higgins, residing outside the jurisdiction, appeared at a de…
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 Corporate Representative Deposition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellee, Garcia, brought an action against Solimar Corporation and its officer, appellant Philip Higgins, alleging breach of contract and fraud.
Service of process could not be obtained on Higgins, who was residing outside the jurisdiction. In response to the appellee’s request that the defendant corporation pro duce a knowledgeable corporate representative to respond to discovery efforts, Higgins appeared specially for the limited purpose of “attending [a] deposition as a representative of Solimar.”
In the midst of the deposition hearing Higgins was nevertheless served with process. He terminated the deposition and filed a motion to quash process and service of process. This appeal is brought from the court’s order denying the motion to quash.
Higgins’ motion to quash should have been granted. Where a defendant is deposed as a corporate representative of a defendant corporation and not as an individual, the individual defendant is immune from process while attending the deposition. Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). An off-the-record agreement between counsel that Higgins would answer certain personal questions so as to permit broad discovery was not a waiver of the prior written understanding that he was appearing solely as a corporate representative.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franco Francini and Claudio Menicocci v. Int'l Marble Trades, Inc., 546 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…al rule that nonresident witnesses, who voluntarily enter the state to testify in pending litigation, are immune from service of process for a reasonable time before and after testifying. Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1983); Higgins v. Garcia, 522 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Pomerantz v. Hollowell, 502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Nevertheless, there is a recognized exception to the nonresident witness immunity rule where the process is issued in litigation incidental to or correlated with the sub…
-
In re the Marriage OF Hector Manuel Gonzalez, 584 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…e from service of process as an individual. It is a well established rule that nonresident witnesses who have entered the state to testify in pending litigation on behalf of a party are immune from service of process individually. Higgins v. Garcia, 522 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Pomerantz v. Hollowell, 502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1987); Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Although the appellee argues that Gonzalez filed a motion to dissolve a…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)