Glovegold Shipping, Ltd. v. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening
Florida District Court of Appeal
791 So. 2d 4 (2000)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Glovegold Shipping Ltd. (Glovegold) (plaintiff), a Maltese corporation, insured its cargo vessel, the Anthenor Express (An-Ex), under a hull-and-machinery marine insurance contract with Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening, also known as The Swedish Club (TSC) (defendant), a Swedish marine insurance company. The An-Ex was berthed in Florida at the time it was insured and regularly ran trade routes in and out of Florida ports. TSC advertised a global network of agents able to respond to local claims, including agents located in Florida. The An-Ex suffered catastrophic hull-and-machinery damage while in Florida waters and was towed to a Florida port for repair. Glovegold submitted a claim under its TSC policy for the repairs. TSC dispatched local Florida agents to investigate, and ultimately denied Glovegold’s claim. Glovegold sued TSC in Florida for breach-of-insurance-obligations, arguing that Florida’s long-arm statute conferred specific-personal-jurisdiction over TSC because the An-Ex was berthed in Florida at the time the insurance contract was executed. TSC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing TSC did not have any contacts with Florida and that there was no nexus between Florida and the policy TSC issued on the An-Ex. The trial court dismissed Glovegold’s claim for lack of personal jurisdiction over TSC. Glovegold appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kahn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.