Winterthur Intern., Ltd. v. Palacios, 89-655

Decision Date20 March 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-655,89-655
Citation559 So.2d 1214
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D1359, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D757 WINTERTHUR INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Appellant, v. Augusto Durand PALACIOS, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Weintraub & Rosen, and Lee I. Weintraub, Miami, for appellant.

J. James Donnellan, III, Miami, for appellee.

Before FERGUSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

COPE, Judge.

Winterthur International, Ltd. appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and its motion to quash service of process. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Winterthur International, Ltd., defendant below, is an insurance company organized Subsequently a coverage dispute arose between the insured and Winterthur. The insured filed suit against Winterthur and the brokers in circuit court in Dade County, Florida. Winterthur moved to dismiss on the grounds that Florida did not have in personam jurisdiction over Winterthur and that service of process was insufficient. The trial court denied the motion and Winterthur has appealed.

under the laws of Bermuda. Augusto Durand Palacios ("the insured" or "Palacios"), a resident of Peru, purchased a Winterthur medical insurance policy through a Miami insurance broker during a visit by the insured to Miami. The application was completed in Miami and the premium was paid there. The insurance plan documents indicate that International Medical Underwriters, of Miami, Florida, is the authorized agent for Winterthur, and the policy issued to the insured was signed by a Dade County, Florida, resident as agent for Winterthur. The policy was delivered to the insured in Peru.

The insured bases his claim of jurisdiction on section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1987) which provides in part:

Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign or alien insurer is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer of the Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer ... to be its true and lawful attorney, upon whom may be served all lawful process in any action, suit, or proceeding instituted by or on behalf of an insured or beneficiary, arising out of any such contract of insurance ...:

(1) The issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state or to corporations authorized to do business therein;

(2) The solicitation of applications for such contracts;

(3) The collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments, or other considerations for such contracts; or

(4) Any other transaction of insurance.

Winterthur does not dispute that it is an alien insurer which has not been authorized to transact business in Florida, see also id. §§ 624.06(3), 624.09(2), and therefore is an unauthorized alien insurer as described in section 626.906. Winterthur argues first, however, that section 626.906 is only available to an insured who is a resident of Florida, not to Palacios, who is a resident of Peru, and second, that Winterthur has performed no acts which would bring it within the ambit of the statute. Affidavits were filed to support the latter contention and contravene those of Palacios.

Winterthur's initial contention--that section 626.906 is unavailable to a nonresident as a matter of law--must be rejected. While the protection of Florida residents is undoubtedly one objective of the statute, see id. § 626.905, it is not the sole objective. Id. Although subsections 626.906(1)-(3) apply only to residents of Florida, subsection 626.906(4) contains no such limitation, and no basis appears on which such a limitation should be implied.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that language employed in subsection 626.906(4), "transaction of insurance," is a defined term within the Florida Insurance Code. Id. § 624.10; see id. § 624.01 (defining Florida Insurance Code). Section 624.10, Florida Statutes, provides:

"Transact" with respect to insurance includes any of the following, in addition to other applicable provisions of this code:

(1) Solicitation or inducement.

(2) Preliminary negotiations.

(3) Effectuation of a contract of insurance.

(4) Transaction of matters subsequent to effectuation of a contract of insurance and arising out of it.

Section 624.10 is not limited, expressly or by implication, to transactions involving Florida residents. We conclude, therefore, that subsection 626.906(4) is available to a nonresident insured.

Winterthur contends, however, that reversal is mandated by Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So.2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), Parliament Life Insurance Co. v. Eglin National Bank, 333 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Parmalee v. Iowa Travel ing Turning to Winterthur's second issue, we concur with the trial judge that the facts alleged by the plaintiff, and supported by affidavit, would, if proven, satisfy the criteria of subsection 626.906(4). While there are factual disputes between the affidavits submitted by the parties, on the present record it appears that solicitation activity was being conducted on behalf of Winterthur from an authorized representative in Miami; that there were preliminary negotiations between the insured and Winterthur's authorized representatives in Dade County, Florida; and that the contract was effectuated by signature of the authorized agent in Dade County, Florida. 2 The trial court correctly concluded that there is a triable issue with respect to in personam jurisdiction and that Winterthur is not entitled to dismissal at this stage.

                Men's Association, 206 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 877, 74 S.Ct. 125, 98 L.Ed. 384-85 (1953).  We disagree.  Those decisions involve construction of what is now subsection 626.906(1), Florida Statutes.  Drake and Parliament hold that subsection 626.906(1) is not available to a plaintiff who became a Florida resident after issuance of the insurance policy, where the foreign or alien insurer has no other contact with Florida.   See generally Citizens Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 525 So.2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).  Parmalee sustained the statute as applied to an insured who was a resident of Florida at the time the policy was issued.  None of those decisions construed subsection 626.906(4) or treated the issue presented here.  To be sure, those decisions contain language suggesting that section 626.906 applies only to Florida residents, but as applied to subsection 626.906(4), those statements are dictum.  Because the present subsection 626.906(4) employs a specifically defined term for purposes of the Insurance Code, we construe the statute in accordance with that definition. 1
                

Subsequent to the trial court's ruling, the Florida Supreme Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Borden v. East-European Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 19 d4 Janeiro d4 2006
    ...So.2d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), which certified conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Winterthur International Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 564 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1990). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The ce......
  • Walter v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Wisconsin, 97-5926
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 10 d4 Junho d4 1999
    ...that case did not question the requirement that the policy be issued or delivered in Florida. See Winterthur Int'l, Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214, 1215-16 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990) (policy issued in 6. Because we conclude that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Blue Cross of ......
  • EAST-EUROPEAN INS. CO. v. Borden
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 d5 Agosto d5 2004
    ...Florida's Unauthorized Insurer's Process Law (UIPL), section 626.906, Florida Statutes (2000), citing Winterthur International Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Alfa argued that the UIPL may only be invoked by Florida residents and Borden is not a Florida resident. Furthe......
  • World Metals, Inc. v. Townley Foundry and Mach. Co., Inc., 91-698
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 19 d4 Setembro d4 1991
    ...hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the disputed factual jurisdictional issues. Venetian Salami Co.; Winterthur International Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Nordmark Presentations, Inc. v. Harman, 557 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN, C.J., an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT