DAVID G. ROMELLOTTI, APPELLANT,
v.
HANOVER AMGRO INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Romellotti sought personal injury protection benefits from his insurer Hanover Amgro. The insurer answered the complaint on the merits but later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the insurer waived the jurisdictional defense by failing to raise it in its initial responsive pleading.
The defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to assert it in its answer to the initial complaint. A party must raise jurisdictional defenses at the first opportunity—either in a responsive pleading or by appropriate motion—or the defense is waived.
[1] A defendant waives the affirmative defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction by failing to raise it in its initial responsive pleading or in a motion directed at the in…
[2] The affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be raised at the first opportunity.
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“a defendant's failure to raise the affirmative defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction by a responsive pleading or by appropriate motion results in a waiver of that defense”
Establishes the core rule that jurisdictional defenses must be raised at the first opportunity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRomellotti filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking personal injury protection benefits under an insurance policy from Hanover Amgro, along …
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 General Appearance cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant, David Romellotti, timely appeals a nonfinal order dismissing his amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The record shows that appellant filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment seeking personal injury protection benefits from appellee, Hanover Amgro Insurance Co., under an insurance policy and damages, attorney’s fees, costs and prejudgment interest resulting from its refusal to provide coverage. Appellee answered appellant’s complaint in which it admitted that it insured appellant but expressed doubt as to whether it was liable for coverage. After appellant filed an amended complaint, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of venue and jurisdiction.
Appellant responded to appellee’s motion to dismiss by arguing that appellee had waived the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction because of its failure to raise the defense in its initial responsive pleading or in a motion directed at his initial complaint. Having generally appeared in the case by pleading to the merits, appellant maintained that appellee had waived the defense.
The trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
We reverse.
It is well established that a defendant’s failure to raise the affirmative defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction by a responsive pleading or by appropriate motion results in a waiver of that defense. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b) & (h). This means that the defense must be raised at the “first opportunity.” See M.T.B. Banking Corp. v. Bergamo Da Silva, 592 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also Cumberland Software, Inc. v. Great American Mortg. Corp., 507 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (the “first step” which a party takes, whether it be the filing of a preliminary motion or a responsive pleading, must assert the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or the defense is waived); Miller v. Marriner, 403 So. 2d 472, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (same).
A party who challenges in personam jurisdiction after making a general appearance in the case is deemed to have waived the right to contest jurisdiction. See Butti- gieg v. Prunetti, 610 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
See also Bay City Management, Inc. v. Henderson, 531 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (jurisdictional defects waived where defendants by general appearance filed a motion to set aside defaults and merely reserved their right to assert jurisdictional defenses without setting forth the defenses or the grounds upon which they were based); Cumberland, 507 So. 2d at 795 (a party who takes “some step” submitting to court’s jurisdiction is deemed to have waived right to challenge court’s jurisdiction regardless of his intent not to concede jurisdiction); White v. Nicholson, 386 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (a party who makes a general appearance may not later repudiate it by attacking court’s personal jurisdiction over him).
Because appellee failed to assert the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction in its answer to appellant’s initial complaint, the defense was waived.
Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s amended complaint is reversed.
REVERSED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…r responsive pleading. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140; Lennar Homes, Inc. v. Gabb Constr. Servs., 654 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The defense will be waived if it is not raised at the “ ‘first opportunity.’ ” See Romellotti v. Hanover Amgro Ins. Co., 652 So. 2d 414, 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (quoting M.T.B. Banking Corp. v. Bergamo Da Silva, 592 So. 2d 1215, 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). However, no waiver occurs if the initial motion to dismiss is amended to include the defense before the motion is heard. See Waxoy…
-
L.A.D. Prop. Ventures, Inc. v. First Bank, 19 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…king “the entry of a deficiency decree, when and if such deficiency decree shall appear proper.” Dent never objected on the basis of personal jurisdiction and, in fact, waived that issue by filing an answer. See Romellotti v. Hanover Amgro Ins. Co., 652 So. 2d 414, 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“It is well established that a defendant’s failure to raise the affirmative defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction by a responsive pleading or by appropriate motion results in a waiver of that defense.” (citing Fla. R.…
-
Umscheid v. Umscheid, 724 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…an order, there are two fatal procedural flaws. First, because appellee did not raise the jurisdictional issue before she made a responsive pleading, her motion was too late. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b) & (h); Romellotti v. Hanover Amgro Ins. Co., 652 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); EGF Tampa Associates v. Edgar V. Bohlen, G.F.G.M. A.G., 532 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Cumberland Software, Inc. v. Great American Mortg. Corp., 507 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); S.B. Partners v. Holmes, 479 So. 2d 280 (F…
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
- Cumberland Software, Inc. v. Great Am. Mortg. Corp., 507 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Miller v. Marriner, 403 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- White v. Maude F. Nicholson and P. N. Nicholson, 386 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- M.T.B. Banking Corp. v. da Silva, 592 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- BAY City Mgmt., Inc. v. Henderson, 531 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Solange Buttigieg v. Francine Prunetti, 610 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)