TRANSPORT & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
THE RECEIVERSHIPS OF THE INSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AMERICAS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, A.I.B. SYNDICATE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, HISPANO AMERICAN SYNDICATE, INC., AN ALIEN CORPORATION, RAM SYNDICATE, INC., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, SYNDICATE ONE, INC., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, SYNDICATE TWO, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, SYNDICATE, THREE, INC., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, SYNDICATE, FOUR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND INTERAMERICAN SYNDICATE, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to dismiss because service of process by certified mail alone was insufficient under Florida law, lacking statutory authority or proper service on an officer or agent.
Service of process by certified mail alone, without personal service or service on an officer or agent, is insufficient and mandates dismissal of the action.
[1] Service of process by certified mail alone, without personal service or service on a corporate officer or agent, is insufficient under Florida law and mandates dismissal…
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 intelligence“The fact that personal service of process was not perfected upon appellant is undisputed. There is no statutory authority, or authority under Rule 1.070, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for serving appellant only by certified mail, as was done here.”
Court explaining why service by certified mail was insufficient as a matter of law.
Transport & General Insurance Company appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss an amended order to show cause in a receivership proceeding invo…
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 Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant has appealed, pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, an order denying its motion to dismiss an amended order to show cause, raising issues concerning the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over appellant. We dismiss Points I and IV, which raises issues that cannot properly be considered by interlocutory appeal. We reverse on one of the two remaining issues.
Appellant correctly asserts that the insufficiency of service of process mandates that appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended order to show cause should have been granted on that ground. The fact that personal service of process was not perfected upon appellant is undisputed. There is no statutory authority, or authority under Rule 1.070, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for serving appellant only by certified mail, as was done here. Although service on an individual, as an officer or agent of appellant, might have been sufficient pursuant to section 48.071, Florida Statutes, if such service had been made on behalf of appellant, there is no indication in the record that service was so made. Thus, in the absence of proper service of process in this case, the trial judge erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended order to show cause.
Due to the outcome of the service of process issue, we do not reach the remaining point on appeal.
Reversed.
SMITH, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laurence Graham v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 970 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…with the order to show cause. The court held: “Giles was entitled to have the order served upon him, not sent by facsimile to his attorney.” Giles, 639 So. 2d at 702; see also Transp. & Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Receiverships of Ins. Exch. of the Ams., 576 So. 2d 1351, 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (concluding that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss order to show cause in the absence of proper service of process). It is undisputed here that Laurence was not personally served with the order…
-
Nguida v. Lake Cnty. Sch. Dist. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…mail." Yaniga v. Fla. Dep't of Transp., No. 8:11-CV-1371-T-23TBM, 2011 WL 6338910, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2011). Nor does Florida law permit original service by certified mail. Transp. & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Receiverships of Ins. Exch. of Ams., Inc., 576 So. 2d 1351, 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“There is no statutory authority, or authority under Rule 1.070, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for [service] only by certified mail, as was done here."); Yaniga, 2011 WL 6338910, at *1 (explaining that "no statute, eit…