Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal revolves around whether Wood and Company, an insurance brokerage in Georgia, is conducting business in Florida, thus establishing long-arm jurisdiction under section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1987). The court finds that the jurisdictional issue remains unresolved based on the current record. Consequently, the court remands the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate the dismissal order and hold an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional matter. This aligns with precedent set in Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assoc., where the plaintiff did not prove general business operations in Florida but was given another chance to meet the burden of proof regarding the long-arm statute. The case is remanded with specific directions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Evidentiary Hearing Requirement for Jurisdictional Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court mandates an evidentiary hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue due to the insufficient record.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court remands the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate the dismissal order and hold an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional matter.
Long-Arm Jurisdiction under Florida Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines whether the defendant's business activities in Florida are sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute.
Reasoning: The appeal revolves around whether Wood and Company, an insurance brokerage in Georgia, is conducting business in Florida, thus establishing long-arm jurisdiction under section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1987).
Precedent in Jurisdictional Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to remand aligns with previous rulings, allowing the plaintiff another opportunity to satisfy the burden of proof for jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.
Reasoning: This aligns with precedent set in Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assoc., where the plaintiff did not prove general business operations in Florida but was given another chance to meet the burden of proof regarding the long-arm statute.