Jurisdiction Blockade: Why Suing a Canadian UM Carrier in Florida is a Uphill Battle

For Florida Attorneys Representing Canadian MVA Clients
When a Canadian client is injured in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) on Florida's roads, the immediate focus is often on the third-party liability claim. However, if the tortfeasor's coverage is insufficient, a claim will naturally turn to the client's own Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) policy—typically issued by a Canadian insurance company.

While the Florida MVA occurred here, attempting to sue the Canadian UM carrier in a Florida court is fraught with significant jurisdictional pitfalls. Based on controlling Florida and federal precedent, filing the UM claim in the Sunshine State is often an express invitation for a Motion to Dismiss.

Here’s a breakdown of the two major jurisdictional arguments Canadian UM carriers are successfully deploying against Florida-filed lawsuits:

1. The Specific Jurisdiction Failure: No "Suit-Related Conduct" in Florida

To assert specific jurisdiction, a Florida court must find that the underlying cause of action "arises out of or relates to" the defendant insurer's activities in Florida. In UM claims involving Canadian carriers, this test almost always fails.

• The Insurance Contract is Foreign: The UM claim is a breach of contract action based on an insurance policy issued, delivered, and entered into in Canada between two Canadian parties. This transaction has no legal nexus to Florida.
• The Defendant's Conduct is Key, Not the Plaintiff's: The core jurisdictional test focuses on the defendant’s activities with the forum, not the unilateral activity of a third party (like the plaintiff driving to Florida).
  • Case Law: The U.S. Supreme Court in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), held that the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a "substantial connection with the forum State." Mere injury to a forum resident (or the insured's presence in the forum) is insufficient.
• The Florida "Mere Accident" Rule: Florida courts have long established that a court does not gain jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer simply because their out-of-state insured was involved in an accident in Florida.
  • Case Law: See Strickland Ins. Group v. Shewmake, 642 So. 2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), citing the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Meyer v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 492 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 1986).

The Takeaway: Unless the UM carrier has engaged in specific conduct in Florida related to the UM claim, a Florida court will likely find that exercising specific jurisdiction "offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice".

2. The General Jurisdiction Blockade: Not "At Home" in Florida

An even higher hurdle is the test for general personal jurisdiction. If successful, a plaintiff can sue a foreign corporation on any cause of action, even if unrelated to the forum.

• The "Essentially at Home" Standard: The Due Process Clause requires a nonresident defendant’s contacts to be "substantial, continuous and systematic" to be subject to general jurisdiction. For a corporation, the "paradigm" places where it is "at home" are its state of incorporation or its principal place of business.
• Canadian UM Carrier is a Foreign Corporation: The Canadian Auto Insurance carrier is typically a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Canada.
  • UM Carrier is not an active corporation in Florida and is not registered to do business here.
  • The carrier does not maintain an office, own property, station employees, or solicit business in Florida.
• Foreseeability is Not Enough: The mere fact that the carrier’s insureds may enter Florida is not enough to satisfy general jurisdiction. This "foreseeability" does not equate to the necessary systematic activity directed at Florida.

The Takeaway: Since the carrier is incorporated and principally located in Canada, it is "at home" in Canada. The Florida court will not find general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation with a lack of any facts showing that the UM carrier is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity in Florida.

The prudent step for Florida counsel is to coordinate with Canadian counsel early. Filing the UM claim in Florida, subjects your client's case to almost certain jurisdictional dismissal and unnecessary delay.

Andrew Iacobelli is an experienced personal injury attorney who established Iacobelli Law Firm with offices located in Ontario, Canada and Florida, U.S.A. Andrew is a licensed attorney in Florida, Texas, Michigan and Ontario.  He restricts his practice to the representation of personal injury victims in claims involving serious injuries and wrongful death in Canada and the United States.  Andrew is the author of "Are You a Canadian Injured in the United States? Claim the Damages and Insurance Coverage the Right Way". 

---