Wilks v. Swift and Co., PP-27
| Decision Date | 06 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. PP-27,PP-27 |
| Citation | 382 So.2d 1364 |
| Parties | Thomas E. WILKS, Appellant, v. SWIFT AND COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and Esmark, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brent M. Turbow and Arthur T. Boone, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Gary A. Budd of Toole, Taylor, Moseley & Joyner, Jacksonville, for appellees.
Appellant Wilks appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his complaint as to appellee Esmark on the ground of lack of in personam jurisdiction. We find that the Florida long-arm statute does reach Esmark in this case and, therefore, we reverse.
Appellant filed a complaint against two foreign corporations his employer, Swift and Swift's parent company, Esmark seeking relief from a denial of pension benefits. In its answer, Esmark moved to dismiss the complaint as to it, asserting insufficient contacts with the state. The record shows that Swift does business in Florida. The pension plan under which appellant was covered was entitled "Esmark Pension Plan." The plan covered employees of Esmark or any of its participating U.S. subsidiary companies, of which Swift was one. A printed pamphlet explaining the pension plan to employees is contained in the record. That pamphlet shows:
Esmark, Inc., administers the Plan and acts as the Plan fiduciary. The board of directors of Esmark, Inc., appoints the members of the Pension Board annually. The Pension Board consists of four members. This Board acts for Esmark, Inc., in administering the Plan. Although the Pension Board cannot alter the terms, conditions or benefits of the Plan, it does make the decisions regarding questions, interpretations and application of any Plan provisions.
All of the Plan's funds are held in the Esmark, Inc., Pension Trust under a trust agreement with Bankers Trust Company of New York.
Appellant's uncontradicted affidavit in the record shows that "all pension benefits were to be paid in Jacksonville."
Section 48.193(1)(g), Fla.Stat., provides that a person submits himself to jurisdiction in this state if he "breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state." Appellant's complaint alleged that Esmark breached its contract with appellant regarding the pension plan, and his affidavit alleged that the pension benefits were to be paid in Jacksonville, Florida. Appellant's pleadings were sufficient to subject Esmark to in personam...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaubien v. Cambridge Consol., Ltd.
...of the trust's managing agent here for its failure to account for trust assets. Sec. 48.193(b), Fla.Stat.; Wilks v. Swift and Company, 382 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In Carr's affidavit filed in support of his motion to dismiss, he alleged that Cambridge has never done business in Flor......
-
Engineered Storage Systems, Inc. v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 82-489
...engages in, or carries on a business in the state pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(a), Florida Statute (1979). Wilks v. Swift and Company, 382 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Professional Patient Transportation, Inc. v. Fink, 365 So.2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Madax International Corporation v.......
-
Thompson v. King
...§ 48.193(1)(g), (1975), was sufficient to confer Florida jurisdiction over the defendants. Id. at 210; see also Wilks v. Swift & Company, 382 So.2d 1364 (1st D.C.A. Fla. 1980). Thus, under Florida law, the allegation in the complaint that defendant promised to pay the $40,000 to plaintiff a......
-
Mary Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. S. E. First Leasing, Inc., 81-702
...and J. Robert Olian, Miami, for appellee. Before HUBBART, C. J., and HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Wilks v. Swift & Co., 382 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1st DCA 1980); Professional Patient Transportation, Inc. v. Fink, 365 So.2d 209 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Madax International Corp. v. Delcher......