Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co.

486 So. 2d 30, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 767, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7100

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1306

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 486 So. 2d 30 (Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co., 486 So. 2d 30, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 767, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7100 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the lower court’s finding that there were insufficiencies in the service of process without reaching the merits of the other issues raised by appellant. The attempted service of process on the defendant, Odissea Shipping Co., was by a Greek attorney who delivered a summons and complaint on a purported agent of the nonresident corporate defendant. Plaintiff Cameron also attempted service of process on defendants, Odissea Shipping Co. and Dido Shipping Co., by delivering a summons and complaint on the manager of [31]*31another purported agent in Miami who filed an uncontroverted affidavit stating that he had no authority to receive service of process on behalf of defendants. The two forms of attempted service did not satisfy statutory requirements. See Biscayne Athletic Club, Inc. v. Iacono, 367 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); §§ 48.081, 48.161, 48.194, Fla.Stat. (1985). Further, there was no showing that plaintiff complied with the requirements of section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1985) in serving defendant, The Swedish Club, through service on the insurance commissioner.

On the record before us, dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the contested jurisdictional issues was premature after the court had determined, correctly, that service was defective.

The order on review, to the extent it quashes service of process, is AFFIBMED; the dismissal of the complaint is REVERSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the lower court’s finding that there were insufficiencies in the service of process without reaching the merits of the other issues raised by appellant. The attempted service of process on the defendant, Odissea Shipping Co., was by a Greek attorney who delivered a summons and complaint on a purported agent of the nonresident corporate defendant. Plaintiff Cameron also attempted service of process on defendants, Odissea Shipping Co. and Dido Shipping Co., by delivering a summons and complaint on the manager of [31]*31another purported agent in Miami who filed an uncontroverted affidavit stating that he had no authority to receive service of process on behalf of defendants. The two forms of attempted service did not satisfy statutory requirements. See Biscayne Athletic Club, Inc. v. Iacono, 367 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); §§ 48.081, 48.161, 48.194, Fla.Stat. (1985). Further, there was no showing that plaintiff complied with the requirements of section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1985) in serving defendant, The Swedish Club, through service on the insurance commissioner.

On the record before us, dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the contested jurisdictional issues was premature after the court had determined, correctly, that service was defective.

The order on review, to the extent it quashes service of process, is AFFIBMED; the dismissal of the complaint is REVERSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 30, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 767, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-v-odissea-shipping-co-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack