Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hoffman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hoffman

302 So. 2d 445

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1974

DocketNo. 74-671

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 So. 2d 445 (Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hoffman) 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

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hoffman, 302 So. 2d 445 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

The issue of law presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether a foreign insurer neither licensed to do, nor engaged in, business within this state may be served pursuant to § 48.181, Fla.Stat. We hold that such a defendant is not properly served by the process prescribed in that statute when the only proof of the acceptance “of the privilege extended by the law to nonresidents and others to operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on a business or business venture in the state” is the fact that its policyholder traveled into this state. Cf. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 903; Viking Superior Corporation v. W. T. Grant Company, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 331.

Accordingly, the order appealed denying defendant Erie Insurance Exchange’s motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion.

Reversed.

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

PEARSON, Judge.

The issue of law presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether a foreign insurer neither licensed to do, nor engaged in, business within this state may be served pursuant to § 48.181, Fla.Stat. We hold that such a defendant is not properly served by the process prescribed in that statute when the only proof of the acceptance “of the privilege extended by the law to nonresidents and others to operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on a business or business venture in the state” is the fact that its policyholder traveled into this state. Cf. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 903; Viking Superior Corporation v. W. T. Grant Company, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 331.

Accordingly, the order appealed denying defendant Erie Insurance Exchange’s motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 So. 2d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erie-insurance-exchange-v-hoffman-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack