Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc.

9 So. 3d 646, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2220, 2009 WL 690975

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2009

Docket4D08-2118

StatusPublished

This text of 9 So. 3d 646 (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc.) 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

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., 9 So. 3d 646, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2220, 2009 WL 690975 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

GROSS, C.J.

In October, 2004, a group of premium finance companies sued “Lloyd’s Underwriters at, London, a/k/a Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London.” The complaint alleged that Lloyd’s was “a corporation which has, or usually keeps, an office for transactions [sic] of its business in Bro-ward County, Florida, and which has an agent or other representative in Broward County, Florida.” The summons called for service on the defendant at “Mendes & Mount, 750 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10019-6829.”

The Corporation of Lloyd’s filed a motion to dismiss in December, 2004. The motion stated that it had been misidentified and improperly sued. Supported by an affidavit, the motion pointed out that the Corporation of Lloyd’s is an “administrative body which provides premises and other support services to a unique and complex international insurance market, just as the New York Stock Exchange provides premises and other support services to the securities market.” The motion asserted that the Corporation of Lloyd’s is not an insurance company and, that it “does not underwrite or sell insurance of any type or kind in England, the United States or in any other country.” The motion suggested that the proper way to bring suit was to sue those underwriters subscribing to a particular policy. See E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident & Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 925 (2d Cir.1998) (explaining the structure of the business of Lloyd’s); Lipcon v. Lloyd’s, 148 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir.1998).

In August 2006, the trial court held a status conference. Without a ruling on the motion to dismiss, the appellees filed an amended complaint that removed the corporation of Lloyd’s as a party and named the defendant as “Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London.” The complaint did not further identify the defendant. There was no policy number alleged. There was no alias summons directed at any defendant.

Perhaps unsure of its status in this lawsuit, the Corporation at Lloyd’s filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. We reverse.

The defendant described in the amended complaint is not an entity capable of being-sued, any more than “a certain driver in Broward County” would be a proper defendant in a case arising from an automobile accident. The amended complaint does not contain a policy number that could be used to identify the underwriters *648 of the policy. There is no indication that service at the New York address is sufficient as to such underwriters.

We therefore reverse the order determining personal jurisdiction, quash service against the Corporation of Lloyd’s, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

FARMER, J., and MAASS, ELIZABETH, Associate Judge, concur.

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

GROSS, C.J.

In October, 2004, a group of premium finance companies sued “Lloyd’s Underwriters at, London, a/k/a Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London.” The complaint alleged that Lloyd’s was “a corporation which has, or usually keeps, an office for transactions [sic] of its business in Bro-ward County, Florida, and which has an agent or other representative in Broward County, Florida.” The summons called for service on the defendant at “Mendes & Mount, 750 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10019-6829.”

The Corporation of Lloyd’s filed a motion to dismiss in December, 2004. The motion stated that it had been misidentified and improperly sued. Supported by an affidavit, the motion pointed out that the Corporation of Lloyd’s is an “administrative body which provides premises and other support services to a unique and complex international insurance market, just as the New York Stock Exchange provides premises and other support services to the securities market.” The motion asserted that the Corporation of Lloyd’s is not an insurance company and, that it “does not underwrite or sell insurance of any type or kind in England, the United States or in any other country.” The motion suggested that the proper way to bring suit was to sue those underwriters subscribing to a particular policy. See E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident & Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 925 (2d Cir.1998) (explaining the structure of the business of Lloyd’s); Lipcon v. Lloyd’s, 148 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir.1998).

In August 2006, the trial court held a status conference. Without a ruling on the motion to dismiss, the appellees filed an amended complaint that removed the corporation of Lloyd’s as a party and named the defendant as “Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London.” The complaint did not further identify the defendant. There was no policy number alleged. There was no alias summons directed at any defendant.

Perhaps unsure of its status in this lawsuit, the Corporation at Lloyd’s filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. We reverse.

The defendant described in the amended complaint is not an entity capable of being-sued, any more than “a certain driver in Broward County” would be a proper defendant in a case arising from an automobile accident. The amended complaint does not contain a policy number that could be used to identify the underwriters *648 of the policy. There is no indication that service at the New York address is sufficient as to such underwriters.

We therefore reverse the order determining personal jurisdiction, quash service against the Corporation of Lloyd’s, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

FARMER, J., and MAASS, ELIZABETH, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 So. 3d 646, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2220, 2009 WL 690975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-london-v-gibraltar-budget-plan-inc-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack