NAVIERA MAYACA EXPRESS S. DE R.L., A HONDURAN CORPORATION D/B/A MAYACA LINES, APPELLANT,
v.
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Naviera Mayaca Express, a Honduran shipping company, appealed the dismissal of its negligence suit against Brauer & Associates, an insurance broker, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that Brauer's extensive business activities in Florida—including years of securing insurance for Naviera's vessel and in-person meetings with the co-plaintiff in Florida—established sufficient contacts to invoke Florida's long-arm jurisdiction.
The court held that Brauer's business activities in Florida—including securing insurance for a Florida-based vessel over a period of years, extensive correspondence with a Florida business, and sending a representative to Florida to discuss renewal policies—constitute conducting or engaging in a business venture in Florida sufficient to invoke Florida's long-arm jurisdiction under Section 48.193(1)(a), and that Brauer had sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process requirements.
[1] A defendant's business relationship with a Florida entity, including securing insurance for a vessel operated from a Florida port and engaging in extensive business corre…
[2] Sufficient minimum contacts with Florida, satisfying due process requirements, are established when a defendant engages in business ventures within the state, such as pro…
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“The defendant Brauer has secured insurance over a period of years for a vessel owned by the plaintiff Naviera and operated from the port of Palm Beach, Florida”
Establishes the defendant's sustained business contacts with Florida relating to the plaintiff's vessel operations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrauer & Associates is an insurance broker with a longstanding business relationship with Teeters Brothers Contracting Company in Florida. Brauer has …
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 Long Arm Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Naviera Mayaca Express S. de R.L., a Honduran corporation d/b/a Mayaca Lines [“Navi-era”], from a non-final order dismissing its lawsuit for negligent procurement of an insurance policy against the defendant Brauer & Associates, Inc. [Brauer], an Ohio corporation, for lack of personal jurisdiction over the said defendant. We reverse.
The record reveals that the defendant Brauer is an insurance broker with a longstanding business relationship with the co-plaintiff [Teeters Brothers Contracting Company] in Florida. The defendant Brauer has secured insurance over a period of years for a vessel owned by the plaintiff Naviera and operated from the port of Palm Beach, Florida; the co-plaintiff Teeters Brothers was the named insured on this policy. In connection therewith, the defendant Brauer has had extensive business correspondence with Teeters Brothers in Florida in connection with the procurement of the insurance and servicing of the account, including on one occasion Brauer’s sending a representative to Florida to discuss and obtain a renewal insurance policy on the subject vessel. We conclude that (1) these activities by the defendant Brauer constitute conducting or engaging in a business venture in Florida sufficient to invoke Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant Brauer pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), and (2) the defendant Brauer has had sufficient minimum contacts in Florida to satisfy due process requirements. Burger King Corp., v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Lacy v. Force V Corp., 403 So. 2d 1050, 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The final order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citicorp Ins. Brokers (Marine), Ltd. v. J.R. Charman, 635 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ts, and collecting over a half a million dollars in commissions. We therefore conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the appellants were conducting business in Florida. See Naviera Mayaca Express S. de R.I. [*82] v. Brauer & Assoc., 559 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (defendant’s acts of procuring insurance for vessel operating out of Florida port, corresponding with insured in connection with procurement of insurance, and servicing account constituted conducting business); Canron Corp. 444 So…
-
Travel Opportunities OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. Walter Karl List Mgmt., Inc., 726 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…hese facts do not show a “general course of business activity in the state for pecuniary benefit.” April Indus., Inc. v. Levy, 411 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Unlike the ease cited by Travel, Naviera Mayaca Express v. Brauer & Assocs., Inc., 559 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), this was not a case where Karl had a “longstanding business relationship” with Travel over a period of years; nor did Karl send extensive business correspondence and a representative to Florida to procure and service the account.…
-
Intego Software, LLC v. Concept Dev., Inc., 198 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…nt insurance broker who corresponded extensively with the Florida plaintiff, and traveled to Florida one time to renew the resulting insurance-policy, was subject to long-arm jurisdiction. Naviera Mayaca Express S. de R.L. v. Brauer & Assocs., Inc., 559 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The Fourth District has held that the non-resident defendant’s sales of product to a Florida plaintiff, and its president’s visit.to plaintiff in Florida to discuss the product, satisfies the long-arm statute. Dublin Co. v. Penin…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985)
- Harlan C. "Bud" Lacy v. Force V Corp., 403 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)