INDUSTRIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CONSULTANT ASSOCIATES, INC., ETC., 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.
Industrial Casualty Insurance Company appeals from orders denying its motions to abate for improper venue and to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction in a breach of contract suit brought by Consultant Associates in Dade County, Florida. The court affirmed, finding venue proper where payment was due and personal jurisdiction established through sufficient minimum contacts with Florida.
The court affirmed both denials. Venue was proper in Dade County because the contract breach alleged involved payment due in Miami Lakes, Florida, and under Florida law venue is proper where payment should have been made. Personal jurisdiction was established because Industrial Casualty had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida through contracting with a Florida corporation, performing services in Florida, and owing payment in Florida.
[1] Venue is proper in a county where payment for a contract was due to be made.
[2] A foreign corporation may be subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida if it contracts with a Florida corporation and the services are performed in Florida.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Venue is proper for suits on contract or other obligations in the county where payment should have been made.”
Establishes the legal standard for proper venue in contract breach actions 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 intelligenceIndustrial Casualty, a foreign corporation, contacted Consultant Associates, a Florida corporation, regarding data conversion services. Industrial Cas…
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 Due Process Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Industrial Casualty Insurance Company [Industrial Casualty], appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to abate for improper venue and from a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Industrial Casualty, a foreign corporation, contacted the plaintiff, Consultant Associates, Inc. [Consultant Associates], a Florida corporation, in Florida regarding Consultant Associates performing data conversion services for Industrial Casualty. Consultant Associates wrote Industrial Casualty outlining the proposed project. Thereafter, Industrial Casualty wrote Consultant Associates at its office in Florida approving the data conversion project. Most, if not all, of Consultant Associates’ services were performed in Florida. Additionally, payment for the services rendered was due in Miami Lakes, Florida.
Consultant Associates sued Industrial Casualty in Dade County, Florida, alleging, in part, that Industrial Casualty breached the contract by failing to pay Consultant Associates for the services rendered. Thereafter, Industrial Casualty filed a motion to abate for improper venue and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The motions were denied. This appeal followed.
First, Industrial Casualty contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to abate for improper venue. We disagree.
“Venue is proper for suits on contract or other obligations in the county where payment should have been made.” Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980); see also Windsor v. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla.2d DCA 1970); § 47.051, Fla.Stat. (1991). In the instant case, the complaint alleges that Industrial Casualty breached the contract by failing to pay Consultant Associates for services it performed. Payment was due at Consultant Associates’ office in Miami Lakes, Florida. Thus, venue is proper in Dade County, Florida. Second, Industrial Casualty contends that the trial court erred in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over Industrial Casualty. We disagree.
In the instant case, the complaint alleges that Industrial Casualty breached the contract in Florida by failing to pay Consultant Associates for services it rendered. We find that the complaint alleged sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring this action within Florida’s long arm statute. See § 48.193(l)(g), Fla.Stat. (1991); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989); Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla.3d DCA 1989).
Next, we must determine whether Industrial Casualty has had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process requirements. “[T]he constitutional touchstone of the minimum contact analysis is whether ‘the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ ” Ben M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. QDA Investment Corp., 570 So. 2d 1349 (Fla.3d DCA 1990) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 542 (1985)) (quoting World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 501 (1980)).
In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the affidavits that were filed by the parties in connection with the motion to dismiss, establish that Industrial Casualty contracted with a Florida corporation; that most, if not all, of the services were performed in Florida; and that payment was due in Florida. Under the circumstances, Industrial Casualty has had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to subject it to the jurisdiction of Florida courts. There can be no doubt that the Industrial Casualty “availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Florida.” Ben M. Hogan, 570 So. 2d at 1351. Accordingly, the non-final order denying Industrial Casualty’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Am. Fin. Trading Corp. v. Bauer, 828 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…with a Florida corporation, all of the services were performed in Florida and payment was due in Florida. Dr. Bauer clearly availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Florida. See Industrial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Assocs., Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The maintenance of this suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. As additional grounds for our holding we find that Dr. Bauer’s activities in Florida are substantial and not isolated. He ini…
-
deMCO Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Engineered Castings, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…its behalf and then actively monitors such services and/or engages in the performance of the services in this state, the nonresident defendant has been found to be amenable to suit in Florida. See Industrial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Assoc., Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Ben Hogan Co. v. QDA Investment Corp., 570 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Atlantis Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. v. R & R Holdings, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Similarly, where a personal guaranty has been acc…
-
The Trs. OF Columbia Univ. IN the City OF NEW York v. Ocean World, S.A., 12 So. 3d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…orida Statutes, where it solicited consulting and other services from a Florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in Florida) (citing Industrial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Associates, Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355, 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)); Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F. 3d 1264, 1273 (11th Cir.2002) (finding general jurisdiction over defendant, whose Florida subsidiary coordinated over 50% of all its hotel guests); Morley v. Lady Allison, Inc., 633…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., Inc., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Windsor v. Crescent A. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- BEN M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. QDA Inv. Corp., 570 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. Am. Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Blanco v. Dep't OF Revenue, 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Sheffield Steel Prods., Inc. v. Powell Bros., Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)