EVELYN K. MORRISSETTE, APPELLANT,
v.
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED D/B/A NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, AND/OR NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE AMERICA, 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.
Morrissette filed a personal injury suit against Norwegian Cruise Line in Miami-Dade County circuit court within the one-year contractual period, but the cruise line contract required suit to be brought in federal district court. The circuit court dismissed for lack of proper venue, and the appellate court affirmed, though Morrissette was not substantially harmed because equitable tolling allowed her federal protective action filed after the deadline to proceed on the merits.
The circuit court properly dismissed the action for improper venue because the contract clearly required suit in federal district court. However, equitable tolling applies to Morrissette's federal protective action filed after the contractual period expired, allowing her to pursue her claims on the merits in federal court.
[1] A contractual provision requiring suit to be brought in a specific federal court, rather than a state court, is enforceable.
[2] Failure to file suit in the contractually designated federal forum, even if filed within the contractual limitations period, warrants dismissal.
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“Although Ms. Morrissette timely brought this action on May 21, 2007, for personal injuries suffered as a passenger on board the Norwegian Sun, "within one (1) year from the day when the injury ... occurred," on June 4, 2006, as the ticket provided, she did so in the circuit court of Miami-Dade County, rather than, as the contract also required, "before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida."”
Establishes the core issue: plaintiff complied with the one-year deadline but filed in the wrong court as specified in the cruise ticket contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Morrissette suffered personal injuries as a passenger on the Norwegian Sun on June 4, 2006. Her cruise ticket contained a contract provision requi…
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 Contractual Limitations Period cases and more on FLexlaw
Although Ms. Morrissette timely brought this action on May 21, 2007, for personal injuries suffered as a passenger on board the Norwegian Sun, “within one (1) year from the day when the injury ... occurred,” on June 4, 2006, as the ticket provided, she did so in the circuit court of Miami-Dade County, rather than, as the contract also required, “before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.” For that reason, it was dismissed below. We affirm. See Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So.3d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), on rehearing en banc, 22 So.3d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
Ms. Morrissette has lost nothing substantively by this decision because, on the authority of the equitable tolling principle applied in Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir.2008), see Carnival Corp. v. Booth, 946 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the federal District Court has denied Norwegian’s motion to dismiss her identical, “protective” action in that court, even though it was filed there on July 19, 2007, after the one year period had expired:
The Eleventh Circuit in Booth held that, under nearly identical circumstances to the instant case, equitable tolling was appropriate:
Booth initially timely filed suit in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Despite the state courts’ eventual ruling that venue was improper, which ruling resulted in dismissal, Booth in no way slept on his claims against Carnival. Even though Booth filed the instant federal suit after the contractual limitation period had run, Carnival was aware within the limitation period that Booth was actively pursuing his cause of action. The underlying policy of repose, reflected in the agreed-upon limitation period, and designed to assure fairness to Carnival, is not violated by equitable tolling in this case. To the contrary, the interests of justice are best served here ... by allowing the parties to resolve Booth’s claims on the merits.
Id. at 1152.
Morrissette v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., No. 07-21866, slip op. at 2 (S.D.Fla. July 23, 2009) (quoting Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148, 1152 (11th Cir.2008)).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nationwide Equities Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…dreds of such appointments. One would expect that, at a minimum, the FDIC and/or its counsel reviewed the contract at issue and familiarized 5 We recognize that this Court has cited Booth with approval in Morrissette v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 25 So. 3d 630, 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). 6 At least one Florida court has declined to extend Machules outside of an administrative setting. HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Hillman, 906 So. 2d 1094, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). themselves with the forum-selectio…
Authorities Cited
- Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Garcia v. Carnival Corp., 22 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Hernandez v. Crigler, 946 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2008)