Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1173,1173 |
| Citation | 200 So.2d 564 |
| Parties | LOMAS & NETTLETON FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ALL COVERAGE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael R. Walsh of Anderson, Rush, Dean & Lowndes, Orlando, and Donald S. Rosenberg of Rosenberg, Rosenberg & Reisman, Miami, for appellant.
Egerton K. van den Berg of van den Berg & Gay, Orlando, for appellee.
The defendant, Lomas & Nettleton Finance Corporation, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss and motion to quash service of process in a suit brought by the plaintiff, All Coverage Underwriters, Inc.
Plaintiff filed suit based on an alleged breach by defendant of a mortgage brokerage contract. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, a Delaware corporation with its sole office in Dallas, Texas, was engaged in business in Florida so as to come within F.S.A. § 47.16, the so-called Long Arm Statute.
Service of process was made upon the Secretary of State of the State of Florida pursuant to F.S.A. § 47.30. Defendant, claiming it was not doing business in Florida, challenged the trial court's jurisdiction by motions to dismiss and quash service. After hearing the trial court denied these motions and defendant appealed.
The question for our determination is whether or not the defendant had such 'minimum contacts' with Florida as to be amenable to the provisions of the Long Arm Statute. Lake Erie Chemical Company v. Stinson, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 587.
We find that defendant was doing business in Florida. The record shows that on at least two occasions defendant was engaged in financing the construction of improvements to real estate in Florida. In each instance the mortgages were to be serviced by the defendant's wholly owned subsidiary with offices in Miami. The resident vice president of the subsidiary, which acted as a mortgage broker, was also an assistant secretary of the defendant.
There is an even broader ground for finding the defendant subject to the terms of the Long Arm Statute. F.S.A. § 47.16 also provides for substituted service where a foreign corporation is engaged in a 'business venture' within the state. This criterion can be met by a lesser involvement than that required for 'doing business.' Steel Joist Institute, Inc. v. J. H. Mann, III, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 625.
Measured by the standards enunciated by the Florida courts, defendant was engaged in a 'business venture' with plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harry Rich Corporation v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
...Fla., 67 So.2d 619 (1963); Lake v. Lucayan Beach Hotel Co., Fla.App., 172 So.2d 260 (1965); Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., Fla.App., 200 So.2d 564, 565 (1967); Continental Copper & Steel Indus. v. E. C. "Red" Cornelius, Inc., Fla.App., 104 So.2d 40 The......
-
A. B. L. Realty Corp. v. Cohl
...be established by showing a lesser involvement than would be required to prove the former. Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., 200 So.2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). This distinction was highlighted by the court in State ex rel. Weber v. Register, 67 So.2d 619,......
-
Washington Star Syndicate, Inc. v. Wright
...Company, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 733; Oxley v. Zmistowski, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 186; Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 564. In addition, the finding of a trial judge that the defendant was engaged in business or in a business ve......
-
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Cebeck
...service activities" requirements of section 48.193(1)(f)1. Appellee's reliance on Lomas and Nettleton Financial Corporation v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., 200 So.2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), is misplaced for two reasons: first, Lomas was not decided under section 48.193(1)(f)1; and seco......