Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 22, 2023 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Foreign corporations — Causing personal injury — Tortious acts — Business venture — Action seeking reimbursement of claims paid by Medicare to treat injuries resulting from implantation of medical devices brought against foreign corporation which manufactured and sold the medical devices — No error in granting defendant corporation’s motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction — Trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant based on defendant causing personal injuries in state — Cause of action does not substantively connect to the personal injury where basis of cause of action is reimbursement for Medicare — Additionally, torts provision of long-arm statute did not provide personal jurisdiction over defendant where defendant did not commit any torts against Medicare individually, and plaintiff admitted that it was not seeking recovery for personal injury claims on behalf of enrollees — With regard to business venture provision of long-arm statute, plaintiff failed to provide facts to demonstrate personal jurisdiction — Furthermore, plaintiff failed to even mention business venture provision in its opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss

48 Fla. L. Weekly D135a

MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et al., Appellants, v. COLOPLAST CORP., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-191. L.T. Case No. 18-30920. January 11, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge. Counsel: MSP Recovery Law Firm, Robert Strongarone, Aida M. Landa, and Janpaul Portal, for appellants. King & Spalding, LLP, Val Leppert and Austin Evans; Squire Patton Boggs (US), LLP, Andrew R. Kruppa and Amanda E. Preston, for appellees. Carlton Fields, P.A., Joseph H. Lang, Jr., and D. Matthew Allen (Tampa); William W. Large (Tallahassee), for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Florida Justice Reform Institute, as amici curiae.

(Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.)ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION

(FERNANDEZ, C.J.) Upon consideration of each party’s motion for a written opinion, we grant the motions, withdraw our previously issued opinion, and substitute the following in its place.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC; and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (collectively, “MSP”) appeals the trial court’s order granting Coloplast Corp., Mentor Worldwide, LLC, and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC’s (collectively, “Coloplast”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law with prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action for a pure bill of discovery. Because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Coloplast, we affirm the order of dismissal on the basis of personal jurisdiction without further discussion on the issue of failure to state a cause of action.

The underlying case concerns pelvic surgical mesh products designed, manufactured, and sold by Coloplast, a foreign corporation, that allegedly caused personal injury to a number of Floridians. MSP’s assignors are Medicare Advantage organizations and related Medicare entities (collectively, “Medicare”) that provide comprehensive health care coverage for their Medicare beneficiaries (“Enrollees”) throughout Florida. Medicare paid for medical care and treatment received by their Enrollees in Florida to treat injuries resulting from the implantation of pelvic surgical mesh products that occurred in Florida. MSP, the assignee, filed its Second Amended Complaint for a Pure Bill of Discovery against Coloplast seeking reimbursement of the claims paid by Medicare.

On October 8, 2021, Coloplast moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction, that MSP is not entitled to a pure bill of discovery, and that it lacked standing. After hearing oral argument, on December 10, 2021, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Coloplast and that MSP failed to state a cause of action for a pure bill of discovery.

This Court reviews rulings on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. Damicet Corp. v. Sidauy, 306 So. 3d 171, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

On appeal, MSP argues that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Coloplast based on three provisions of the long-arm statute: section 48.193(1)(a)(6), Coloplast caused personal injury; section 48.193(1)(a)(2), Coloplast committed torts; and section 48.193(1)(a)(1), Coloplast engaged in a business or business venture.

This case is a Medicare reimbursement case, not a personal injury action. MSP dispelled any notion of this being a personal injury action by admitting on appeal that “[e]ventually, Appellants intend to pursue recoveries for damages sustained by the Assignors’ [sic] as a result of Appellees’ defective products — not personal injury claims on behalf of the Enrollees.” (Emphasis added). Additionally in the second amended complaint, MSP claims that “the Assignors bore the costs associated with the treatment of said injuries in Florida, causing them financial damages.” (Emphasis added).

The basis of the cause of action is reimbursement of Medicare, in MSP’s words, “damages sustained by the Assignor’s [sic].” The activity in the state is injury to persons within Florida arising from Coloplast’s defective products. MSP’s cause of action does not substantively connect to the personal injury. See Philip J. Padovano, Fla. Prac., Civil Practice § 8:7 (2022 ed.) (“The term ‘arising from’ in section 48.193 means that there must be a substantive connection between the basis of the cause of action and the activity in the state.”). Consistent with decisions from both Florida and the Southern District, we find that MSP seeks economic damages that do not fall within section 48.193(1)(a)(6). See Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 511 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1987); MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44 LLC v. Great American Ins. Co., 20-24094-CIV, 2021 WL 8343191 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2021); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co., 20-CV-24062-UU, 2021 WL 8343190 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2021).1

The analysis for the torts provision of the long-arm statute is essentially the same. Coloplast did not commit any torts against Medicare individually. MSP has admitted that it will not seek recovery for personal injury claims on behalf of the Enrollees. Therefore, there is no substantive connection between the basis of the cause of action and the activity in the state, which would be any alleged torts committed against individuals in Florida.

As to the business venture provision of the long-arm statute, MSP failed to provide facts to demonstrate personal jurisdiction on this ground in its second amended complaint. MSP also fails to mention this provision, much less provide evidence to support it, in its opposition to Coloplast’s motion to dismiss. See MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Northland Ins. Co., 20-CV-24176, 2022 WL 2341158, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 20-24176-CIV, 2022 WL 3042265, n. 6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2022) (“Plaintiff’s failure to allege, in the [Second Amended Complaint], that this Court has jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(6) is reason alone to reject the argument Plaintiff now makes that this is a basis for personal jurisdiction. I also note further that the [Second Amended Complaint] does not allege facts that support jurisdiction on this ground.”).

For the reasons stated, we affirm the order on appeal dismissing the second amended complaint for the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over Coloplast.

Affirmed.

__________________

1MSP cites to North Star International Seafood Company, Inc. v. Banner Beef & Seafood Company, Inc., 677 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), for support. Upon reading the first few sentences of the North Star opinion, the case is immediately distinguishable — “The plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action . . . .” Id. at 1004. Conversely, the case before this court is a Medicare reimbursement case, not a personal injury action.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982