What did the appeals court decide?

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of Hartford’s motion to dismiss, finding Hartford did not waive its jurisdictional challenge and MSP’s allegations did not establish personal jurisdiction.

Who is affected by this decision?

MSP Recovery (the plaintiff) is affected because its case must be dismissed; Hartford (the defendant) benefits because the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed against it on these allegations.

What happens next in the case?

The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes; the opinion notes a recent related order in which review was sought, so parties may seek further review by the Florida Supreme Court if eligible.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC

Docket 3D2025-0565

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilReversed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Reversed
Docket: 3D2025-0565

Appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in an action for a bill of discovery and declaratory judgment under the Florida No-Fault statute.

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court order that denied Hartford’s motion to dismiss MSP Recovery’s second amended complaint. MSP had sued for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory relief under Florida’s motor-vehicle no-fault statute, alleging the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. The trial court found Hartford had abandoned its jurisdictional defense, but the appellate court held Hartford did not abandon that defense and, applying a recent controlling precedent (USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims), concluded the long-arm jurisdictional allegations were insufficient. The case is dismissed and remanded with directions to dismiss the action.

Issues Decided

Whether Hartford abandoned its challenge to personal jurisdiction by the actions it took in the trial court.
Whether the trial court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford under Florida law based on the allegations in MSP’s complaint.

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded Hartford’s pretrial defensive filings and procedural actions did not constitute an abandonment or waiver of its challenge to personal jurisdiction because Florida precedent treats such defensive actions as consistent with maintaining a jurisdictional defense. On the merits, the court applied its recent controlling decision in USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims and found MSP’s jurisdictional allegations insufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction over Hartford under Florida law, so dismissal was required.

Authorities Cited

USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC425 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Kimbrough v. Rowe479 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
Rorick v. Chancey195 So. 418 (Fla. 1938)
Snider v. Metcalfe157 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

Parties

Appellant: Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, et al.
Appellee: MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al.
Judge: William Thomas
Judge: LOBREE
Attorney: Kendall B. Coffey
Attorney: Scott A. Hiaasen
Attorney: Jeffrey B. Crockett
Attorney: Jonathan M. Freiman
Attorney: John H. Ruiz
Attorney: Erimar Von der Osten

Key Dates

Opinion filed: 2026-04-29
Lower tribunal case number

What You Should Do Next

1
For MSP (plaintiff)
Consider whether to seek leave to amend jurisdictional allegations with facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction or pursue filing in a proper forum with jurisdiction over Hartford.
2
For Hartford (defendant)
Monitor the remand dismissal and, if appropriate, move to have the dismissal entered and consider seeking costs or other relief from the trial court.
3
For either party
Consult appellate counsel about whether to seek review from the Florida Supreme Court if there are grounds to challenge or defend the appellate decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of Hartford’s motion to dismiss, finding Hartford did not waive its jurisdictional challenge and MSP’s allegations did not establish personal jurisdiction.
Who is affected by this decision?: MSP Recovery (the plaintiff) is affected because its case must be dismissed; Hartford (the defendant) benefits because the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed against it on these allegations.
What happens next in the case?: The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes; the opinion notes a recent related order in which review was sought, so parties may seek further review by the Florida Supreme Court if eligible.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 29, 2026.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D25-0565
                    Lower Tribunal No. 19-1054-CA-01
                           ________________


       Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

            MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al.,
                                 Appellees.



     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, William Thomas, Judge.

     Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Kendall B. Coffey and Scott A. Hiaasen
and Jeffrey B. Crockett; Wiggin and Dana, LLP and Jonathan M. Freiman
(New Haven, CT), for appellants.

      MSP Recovery Law Firm, and John H. Ruiz and Erimar Von der Osten,
for appellees.


Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

     LOBREE, J.
      Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.,

Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Hartford

Insurance Co. of the Southeast, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., and

Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford (collectively “Hartford”) appeal

an order denying their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint of

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and MSP

Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (collectively “MSP”). This appeal arises

from an action filed by MSP for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory

judgment under Florida’s Motor Vehicle No-Fault statute, section 627.736,

Florida Statutes (2019). MSP’s second amended complaint alleged the trial

court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. Hartford moved to

dismiss, arguing in relevant part that there were insufficient allegations

regarding personal jurisdiction.   MSP responded but did not argue that

Hartford abandoned its challenge to personal jurisdiction. After a hearing,

the trial court denied the motion to dismiss finding Hartford had abandoned

their jurisdictional defense.

      “This Court reviews rulings on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction de novo.” MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp.,

353 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Upon review, we conclude based

on the facts of this case that none of the grounds identified in the dismissal



                                      2
order constitute abandonment of a challenge to personal jurisdiction under

Florida law. See Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA

1985) (“[D]efensive actions undertaken by defendants do not constitute

requests for affirmative relief inconsistent with their initial defense of lack of

jurisdiction.”); Rorick v. Chancey, 195 So. 418, 421 (Fla. 1938) (finding filing

of petition and bond for removal of cause to federal court does not constitute

“general appearance” in state court that will preclude defendant from

subsequently questioning state court’s jurisdiction); Barrios v. Sunshine

State Bank, 456 So. 2d 590, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (finding filing of motion

for enlargement of time did not constitute general appearance and was not

waiver of defendant’s defense of lack of personal jurisdiction); Snider v.

Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding defendant did

not waive challenge to personal jurisdiction despite two-year gap between

filing of original motion to dismiss and amended motion to dismiss raising

challenge to personal jurisdiction for the first time as defendant sought no

affirmative action from trial court).

      On the merits of Hartford’s motion to dismiss, we conclude this case is

controlled by a recent decision of our court, USAA Casualty Insurance Co.

v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 425 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

In USAA Casualty Insurance, we declined to extend long-arm jurisdiction



                                        3
under nearly identical circumstances to those identified by MSP in this case.

425 So. 3d at 1160, review dismissed, No. SC2026-0077, 2026 WL 483191

(Fla. Feb. 20, 2026), reinstatement granted sub nom., No. SC2026-0077,

2026 WL 834080 (Fla. Mar. 25, 2026).          Accordingly, we reverse the

underlying order on appeal and remand to the trial court with instructions to

dismiss the action.

     Reversed and remanded with directions.




                                     4