Southeast Floating Docks v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

82 So. 3d 73 (2012)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
S
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Southeast Floating Docks v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

Florida Supreme Court
82 So. 3d 73 (2012)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Southeast Floating Docks (Southeast) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Auto-Owners Insurance Company (AOIC) (defendant) containing a choice-of-law clause stating that contract disputes would be governed by Michigan substantive law. AOIC initiated a contract-dispute action against Southeast in federal district court. Southeast prevailed over AOIC in the lawsuit and subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees in district court under Florida Statutes Section 768.79, which allowed qualifying defendants to recover attorney’s fees. AOIC challenged, arguing that Section 768.79 was inapplicable because it was Florida substantive law and, per Southeast and AOIC’s contract, the contract dispute was governed by Michigan substantive law. The district court denied Southeast’s motion for attorney’s fees. Southeast appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that Section 768.79 should be classified as procedural law, rather than substantive law, for conflict-of-law purposes. The Eleventh Circuit certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) whether Section 768.79 was substantive law or procedural law; and (2) if Section 768.79 was substantive law, whether it applied to contract disputes in which the parties had contractually agreed to apply the substantive law of a different state.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lewis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Civil Procedure

Key Terms