HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.
v.
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, ET AL.
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.
A defendant does not abandon its challenge to personal jurisdiction merely by taking defensive actions inconsistent with a general appearance, and long-arm jurisdiction cannot be extended under the circumstances alleged by MSP against Hartford insurers.
[1] A defendant does not abandon or waive its challenge to personal jurisdiction by filing defensive motions, seeking enlargement of time, or taking other defensive actions t…
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“Defensive actions undertaken by defendants do not constitute requests for affirmative relief inconsistent with their initial defense of lack of jurisdiction.”
Court citing Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) in support of the proposition that defensive motions do not waive jurisdictional challenges.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC filed an action against Hartford insurance companies for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory judgment under Flori…
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 Pure Bill Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 29, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0565
Lower Tribunal No. 19-1054-CA-01 Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Kendall B. Coffey and Scott A. Hiaasen and Jeffrey B. Crockett; Wiggin and Dana, LLP and Jonathan M. Freiman (New Haven, CT), for appellants.
MSP Recovery Law Firm, and John H. Ruiz and Erimar Von der Osten, for appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
LOBREE, J.
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Hartford Insurance Co. of the Southeast, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., and Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford (collectively "Hartford”) appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (collectively “MSP”). This appeal arises from an action filed by MSP for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory judgment under Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault statute, section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2019). MSP's second amended complaint alleged the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. Hartford moved to dismiss, arguing in relevant part that there were insufficient allegations regarding personal jurisdiction. MSP responded but did not argue that Hartford abandoned its challenge to personal jurisdiction. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss finding Hartford had abandoned their jurisdictional defense. "This Court reviews rulings on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo.” MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp., 353 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Upon review, we conclude based on the facts of this case that none of the grounds identified in the dismissal order constitute abandonment of a challenge to personal jurisdiction under Florida law. See Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("[D]efensive actions undertaken by defendants do not constitute requests for affirmative relief inconsistent with their initial defense of lack of jurisdiction."); Rorick v. Chancey, 195 So. 418, 421 (Fla. 1938) (finding filing of petition and bond for removal of cause to federal court does not constitute "general appearance” in state court that will preclude defendant from subsequently questioning state court's jurisdiction); Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So. 2d 590, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (finding filing of motion for enlargement of time did not constitute general appearance and was not waiver of defendant's defense of lack of personal jurisdiction); Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding defendant did not waive challenge to personal jurisdiction despite two-year gap between filing of original motion to dismiss and amended motion to dismiss raising challenge to personal jurisdiction for the first time as defendant sought no affirmative action from trial court).
On the merits of Hartford's motion to dismiss, we conclude this case is controlled by a recent decision of our court, USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 425 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). In USAA Casualty Insurance, we declined to extend long-arm jurisdiction under nearly identical circumstances to those identified by MSP in this case. 425 So. 3d at 1160, review dismissed, No. SC2026-0077, 2026 WL 483191 (Fla. Feb. 20, 2026), reinstatement granted sub nom., No. SC2026-0077, 2026 WL 834080 (Fla. Mar. 25, 2026). Accordingly, we reverse the underlying order on appeal and remand to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the action.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
4
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Eligio Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Rorick v. Chancey, 142 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1938)