Background
Aleah Holms sued Progressive Michigan Insurance Company in Collier County Circuit Court. Progressive answered but did not initially assert lack of personal jurisdiction. It later obtained leave to amend its answer to add that affirmative defense and separately moved to dismiss count II for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The trial court referred Progressive’s motion to dismiss and Holms’s motion to strike the personal-jurisdiction portions of Progressive’s amended pleading to a general magistrate. The magistrate recommended denying Holms’s motion to strike but also denying Progressive’s post-answer motion to dismiss, reasoning that the defense could not be raised in that later motion. The circuit court denied Progressive’s exceptions and approved the recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District dismissed Progressive’s nonfinal appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) permits review of certain nonfinal orders that determine personal jurisdiction, but the appealed order did not actually adjudicate or conclusively decide whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Progressive.
Although the approved recommendation denied Progressive’s motion to dismiss, it did not settle the personal-jurisdiction question or find that Progressive had waived the defense. The court declined to expand its narrowly construed nonfinal-appeal jurisdiction based on Progressive’s assertion that the order effectively determined the issue.
Key Takeaways
- A nonfinal order is appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) only when it actually determines personal jurisdiction.
- Denying a post-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not necessarily decide whether personal jurisdiction exists.
- Florida district courts must construe categories of appealable nonfinal orders narrowly.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a procedural ruling on how a personal-jurisdiction defense may be presented from a conclusive ruling on the jurisdictional issue itself. Litigants seeking interlocutory review must identify an order that expressly and actually resolves personal jurisdiction, rather than one that merely denies a particular motion.