Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0565
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 29, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0565 Lower Tribunal No. 19-1054-CA-01 ________________

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, et al., Appellants,

vs.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.

Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Kendall B. Coffey and Scott A. Hiaasen and Jeffrey B. Crockett; Wiggin and Dana, LLP and Jonathan M. Freiman (New Haven, CT), for appellants.

MSP Recovery Law Firm, and John H. Ruiz and Erimar Von der Osten, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

LOBREE, J. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.,

Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Hartford

Insurance Co. of the Southeast, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., and

Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford (collectively “Hartford”) appeal

an order denying their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint of

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and MSP

Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (collectively “MSP”). This appeal arises

from an action filed by MSP for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory

judgment under Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault statute, section 627.736,

Florida Statutes (2019). MSP’s second amended complaint alleged the trial

court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. Hartford moved to

dismiss, arguing in relevant part that there were insufficient allegations

regarding personal jurisdiction. MSP responded but did not argue that

Hartford abandoned its challenge to personal jurisdiction. After a hearing,

the trial court denied the motion to dismiss finding Hartford had abandoned

their jurisdictional defense.

“This Court reviews rulings on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction de novo.” MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp.,

353 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Upon review, we conclude based

on the facts of this case that none of the grounds identified in the dismissal

2 order constitute abandonment of a challenge to personal jurisdiction under

Florida law. See Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA

1985) (“[D]efensive actions undertaken by defendants do not constitute

requests for affirmative relief inconsistent with their initial defense of lack of

jurisdiction.”); Rorick v. Chancey, 195 So. 418, 421 (Fla. 1938) (finding filing

of petition and bond for removal of cause to federal court does not constitute

“general appearance” in state court that will preclude defendant from

subsequently questioning state court’s jurisdiction); Barrios v. Sunshine

State Bank, 456 So. 2d 590, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (finding filing of motion

for enlargement of time did not constitute general appearance and was not

waiver of defendant’s defense of lack of personal jurisdiction); Snider v.

Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding defendant did

not waive challenge to personal jurisdiction despite two-year gap between

filing of original motion to dismiss and amended motion to dismiss raising

challenge to personal jurisdiction for the first time as defendant sought no

affirmative action from trial court).

On the merits of Hartford’s motion to dismiss, we conclude this case is

controlled by a recent decision of our court, USAA Casualty Insurance Co.

v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 425 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

In USAA Casualty Insurance, we declined to extend long-arm jurisdiction

3 under nearly identical circumstances to those identified by MSP in this case.

425 So. 3d at 1160, review dismissed, No. SC2026-0077, 2026 WL 483191

(Fla. Feb. 20, 2026), reinstatement granted sub nom., No. SC2026-0077,

2026 WL 834080 (Fla. Mar. 25, 2026). Accordingly, we reverse the

underlying order on appeal and remand to the trial court with instructions to

dismiss the action.

Reversed and remanded with directions.