Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...nal Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 564 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1990). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The certified conflict involves an issue of statutory construction: whether as a matter of law section 626.906(4), Florida Statutes (2005), [1] of Florida's Unauthorized Insurer's Process Law (UIPL), which specifies the acts that will subject unauthorized foreign insurers to the jurisdiction of Florida courts, is available only to Florida residents. We conclude that the Second District in Borden correctly interpreted this statute, and hold that only Florida residents are entitled to utilize the provisions of section 626.906, including subsection (4), to obtain personal jurisdiction over an insurer who is not otherwise authorized to do business in Florida....

...k of personal jurisdiction in response to the amended complaint. Alfa asserted by affidavit that Florida courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the insurer because Alfa did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. Alfa also asserted that section 626.906(4) of the UIPL may be invoked only by Florida residents and is therefore unavailable to Borden as a resident of Honduras. In their written responses to Alfa's motion to quash, Borden, Barnhardt, and Ocean argued that service of process and personal jurisdiction were appropriate under section 626.906(4), relying on the Third District's decision in Winterthur....

...(2005), and determined that this argument "not only has no merit but also was not raised below and, therefore, is waived." Id. at 235 n. 1. The Second District next addressed whether service of process and personal jurisdiction were available under section 626.906(4). The Second District concluded that section 626.906(4) applies only to claims brought against unauthorized foreign insurers by Florida residents. The Second District certified conflict with Winterthur, which held that section 626.906(4) applies to both residents and nonresidents. [5] ANALYSIS The certified conflict issue before this Court is whether as a matter of law section 626.906(4) of the UIPL is available only to Florida residents....

...Dep't of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004). We begin our analysis by discussing the concepts of service of process and personal jurisdiction. We then explore the pertinent provisions in Florida's UIPL. Next, we review the interpretations of section 626.906(4) by the Third District in Winterthur and the Second District in this case. Finally, we discuss why, as a matter of law, section 626.906(4) is available only to Florida residents....

...n unauthorized insurers and persons representing or aiding such insurers, and declares that in so doing it exercises its power to protect its residents and to define, for the purpose of this chapter, what constitutes doing business in this state.... Section 626.906 specifies the acts which will subject unauthorized foreign insurers to the jurisdiction of Florida courts: Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign insurer, alien insurer, or p...

...(2005). Section 626.907, Florida Statutes (2005), is entitled "Service of process; judgment by default," and specifies the procedure by which service of process is to be made for unauthorized foreign insurers subject to personal jurisdiction under section 626.906. Thus, collectively sections 626.906 and 626.907 allow a Florida court to effectuate service of process on and exercise personal jurisdiction over an unauthorized foreign insurer whenever the insurer engages in one of the acts enumerated in section 626.906....

...lso Bookman v. KAH Inc., 614 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (noting that the UIPL was enacted to subject certain insurers not authorized to do business in this state to Florida jurisdiction, and that the insurer's doing of an act enumerated in section 626.906 authorizes service of process on the Insurance Commissioner of Florida as the insurer's authorized agent). C. Interpretation of Section 626.906(4), Florida Statutes (2005) Among Florida's district courts, only the Second District in this case and the Third District in Winterthur have specifically construed subsection (4) of section 626.906 to determine whether this subsection is available to nonresidents....

...International, Ltd. (Winterthur). 559 So.2d at 1214-15. Winterthur was a Bermuda corporation that was not authorized to do business in Florida. See id. at 1215. The insured asserted that Florida courts had personal jurisdiction over Winterthur under section 626.906. See id. Winterthur argued, however, that section 626.906 is available only to an insured who is a Florida resident, and that Winterthur had not performed any acts that would bring it within the reach of the statute. See id. The Third District rejected the assertion that as a matter of law section 626.906(4) is limited to Florida residents, and held that "subsection 626.906(4) is available to a nonresident insured." 559 So.2d at 1215. The Third District observed that unlike subsections (1) through (3) of section 626.906, subsection (4) does not contain either an express or implied residency limitation....

...ated acts, but stated that this definition "is not limited, expressly or by implication, to transactions involving Florida residents." Id. The Third District concluded therefore that "no basis appears on which such a limitation should be implied" in section 626.906(4)....

...orized foreign insurers to the jurisdiction of Florida courts in suits brought by or on behalf of insureds or beneficiaries arising out of the insurer's business transactions in this state. See id. at 1217. The Third District concluded that applying section 626.906(4) to nonresidents is consistent with this broader purpose. See id. Directly contrary to Winterthur, the Second District in this case held that "subsection (4) of section 626.906 is available only to Florida residents." Borden, 884 So.2d at 238. The Second District reasoned that the Legislature "has expressly stated that section 626.906 (as a whole) was meant to protect Florida residents." Id. at 236. In disagreeing with Winterthur's interpretation of section 626.906(4), the Second District explained that "[s]ubsections (1)-(3) place a residency limitation on the very activities that are encompassed within section 624.10's definition of `transact.'" Id....

...(1)-(3) meaningless." Id. Further, the Second District noted that subsequent to Winterthur, the Third District in Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel, Ltd. v. Plastigone Technologies, Inc., 623 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), explicitly stated that section 626.906 "applies only to insurers that issue policies `held by Florida residents." (quoting Bookman ). In Hassneh, the Third District failed to refer to or distinguish its previous decision in Winterthur. D. Statutory Construction Our task is to determine whether, based on the language of the statute, the Legislature intended to limit section 626.906(4) to Florida residents....

...'s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent." Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla.2005). Borden asserts that the ambiguity in this case occurs because subsection (4) of section 626.906 refers to "[a]ny other transaction of insurance." There is no question that subsections (1) through (3) of section 626.906 are available by their plain terms only to residents of the state. Subsection (1) specifically refers to "[t]he issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state " and subsections (2) and (3) refer to "such contracts." § 626.906(1)-(3), Fla....

...Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) (emphasis omitted). To construe subsection (4) to cover all transactions of insurance without regard to whether these transactions involve Florida residents or nonresidents would render subsections (1) through (3) of section 626.906 meaningless....

...tatute meaningless." State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002). As recognized by the Second District, section 624.10 encompasses some of the same transactions enumerated in subsections (1) through (3). For example, section 624.10, which provides section 626.906(4) with its definition of "transaction of insurance," includes within the definition of "transact" the solicitation *596 or inducement of an insurance policy, the effectuation of an insurance policy, and the transaction of matters subsequent to effectuation of the insurance policy and arising out of it....

...Similarly, subsections (1) through (3) refer to the issuance or delivery of an insurance policy; the solicitation of applications for an insurance policy; and the collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments, or other considerations for an insurance policy. § 626.906(1)-(3)....

...1) through (3) based on a foreign insurer's unauthorized acts if the insurer could be subject to service of process and personal jurisdiction under subsection (4) for engaging in these same acts even if the insured is not a Florida resident. Reading section 626.906 as a whole, we conclude that subsection (4) was intended to operate not as a freestanding provision but rather to address "[a]ny other transaction of insurance" not covered under subsections (1) through (3)....

...urance policies issued in Florida by unauthorized foreign insurers, section 626.905 reflects legislative intent that the UIPL serve as a mechanism to protect Florida residents by providing for the litigation of these claims in this state. Construing section 626.906(4) as being available to nonresidents is not consistent with the Legislature's stated intent in section 626.905 to protect Florida residents through the UIPL....

...hat the UIPL was enacted to fulfill the "obligation and duty of the state to protect its residents. " (Emphasis supplied.) In accord with the stated intent of the Legislature and statutory construction principles, we conclude that as a matter of law section 626.906(4) is available only to Florida residents. In this case, it is undisputed that Borden is not a Florida resident. Thus, Alfa is not subject to service of process and personal jurisdiction under section 626.906(4) because that statute is not available to Borden. Having concluded that section 626.906(4) is inapplicable in this case, we need not address the issue of whether exercising personal jurisdiction over Alfa violates constitutional due process requirements. Our resolution of the certified conflict issue renders the constitutional issue moot. [8] *597 CONCLUSION We hold that section 626.906(4) is available as a matter of law only in lawsuits brought against unauthorized foreign insurers by Florida residents. We approve the decision reached by the Second District in this case, and disapprove the Third District's decision in Winterthur. It is so ordered. WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The current version of section 626.906 is in all material respects the same as the 1987 and 2000 versions of the statute construed in Borden and Winterthur....

...[4] "[T]he law is well settled that in cases involving multiple defendants all defendants must consent to the removal of a case to federal court." Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1049 (11th Cir.2001). [5] In addition to the issue of whether section 626.906(4) applies only to claims brought against unauthorized foreign insurers by Florida residents, Alfa raised the following two issues: whether Florida courts have specific jurisdiction over Alfa under section 626.906(4) and whether exercising jurisdiction would violate the constitutional principle of fair play and substantial justice. The Second District did not reach these remaining issues because the court determined that its conclusion that section 626.906(4) did not apply rendered these issues moot....

...y an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. " 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (plurality opinion). [7] It is noteworthy that, although not specifically referring to subsection (4), all of the courts that have construed section 626.906 in its entirety have concluded that the statute is available only to insurance policies issued to Florida residents. See, e.g., Walter, 181 F.3d at 1204-05 (stating that section 626.906 is limited to insurance policies issued to Florida residents); Parmalee v....

...4th DCA 1996) ("Substitute service on Florida's Insurance Commissioner is permitted under the Unauthorized Insurers Process Law where a foreign insurer has `by mail or otherwise' issued and delivered a contract of insurance to a resident of Florida.") (quoting section 626.906, Fla....

...v. Frederick, 654 So.2d 656, 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (concluding that presence in Florida of insured resident of another state when policy was renewed was insufficient to support in personam jurisdiction over insurer pursuant to sections 48.193 and 626.906); Bookman, 614 So.2d at 1182 (concluding that section 626.906 "only applies to policies held by Florida residents"); Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So.2d 961, 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (agreeing with precedent stating that section 626.906 is available "only to policies of insurance issued or delivered ... to Florida residents by an unauthorized foreign insurer"); Parliament Life Ins. Co. v. Eglin Nat'l Bank, 333 So.2d 517, 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (stating that section 626.906 requires "the issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this State")....

...[3] Now, with respect to appellant Beacon, it is equally clear that again appellees' original complaint did not contain the jurisdictional allegations necessary to constitute the Insurance Commissioner as Beacon's agent for substituted service of process pursuant to Sections 626.906 and 626.907(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale, 325 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Here, appellant Beacon adequately challenged the jurisdiction of the court by affidavit and made a prima facie showing that it had not engaged in any of the requisite acts required by Section 626.906 to render it amenable to substituted service of process on the Insurance Commissioner....

...ability insurance business in Florida at all pertinent times. First, we do not think that a conclusory allegation that a foreign insurer is engaging in the insurance business in Florida, without allegations of any of the particular acts specified in Section 626.906, is sufficient even to carry the plaintiff's initial burden of pleading facts to clearly justify, as a matter of law, the applicability of the substituted service statute....

...Florida at the time of the accident is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over Beacon by way of substituted service. The Parliament court followed Parmalee v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Association, 206 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.1953) in construing Section 626.906 to apply only to policies of insurance issued or delivered in Florida to Florida residents by an unauthorized foreign insurer....

...f the policy occurred in Pennsylvania and not in Florida. Further, Parliament had never done business in Florida. Thus, the fact that the insured was a resident of Florida, standing alone, was not sufficient to bring Parliament within the purview of Section 626.906....

...(2) The solicitation of applications for such contracts; (3) The collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments, or other considerations for such contracts; or (4) Any other transaction of insurance. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 626.906 (West 1996 & Supp.1999). The reach of this statute is, of course, a question of Florida law. See Madara, 916 F.2d at 1514. Walter argues that the district court had jurisdiction over Blue Cross of Wisconsin under § 626.906, because Blue Cross collected premiums sent from Florida and made payments to health care providers in Florida for almost thirty years.4 Blue Cross responds that the Walters received their insurance policy while they lived in Wisconsin, and the third party administrator agreement it operates under prohibits Blue Cross from terminating the Walters' policy because they moved to Florida. Florida cases interpreting § 626.906 focus on whether a nonresident insurer made a deliberate and voluntary choice to do business in Florida....

...Eglin Nat'l Bank, 333 So.2d 517, 518 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976) (premium payments by insureds who moved to Florida did not establish jurisdiction). For personal jurisdiction to attach, the insurer must issue or deliver the original policy in Florida, see Kanawha, 394 So.2d at 1147 (limiting jurisdiction under § 626.906 to cases "where the insurance contract is entered into or delivered in the State of Florida"), or reissue or amend the policy after the insured has moved to Florida....

...policy after she moved to Florida. See id. at 946-47 ("Under Lloyd and Bowman, Blue Cross' 1994 issuance of its amended policy to appellant in Florida, and subsequent collection of premiums, are sufficient contacts with Florida to subject it to suit in this forum under [§ 626.906].")....

...ated it would not decide whether merely receiving premiums and making payments for ten years was enough to confer jurisdiction over the insurer. See id. at 946. Walter argues that the district court had jurisdiction over Blue Cross under § 626.906(3), which explicitly lists the collection of premiums as an act that subjects a foreign insurer to suit in Florida, and § 626.906(4), which covers "[a]ny other transaction of insurance." Florida courts, however, have limited the application of § 626.906 to insurance policies issued or delivered in Florida. See Bookman, 614 So.2d at 1182 ("[T]he statute only applies to policies held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida."); Kanawha, 394 So.2d at 1147 (limiting § 626.906(3) "to a situation where the insurance contract is entered into or delivered in the State of Florida").5 We adopted a similar limitation for an earlier version 5 Although a later Florida decision applied § 626.906(4) to an insurance policy held by a non-resident, that case did not question the requirement that the policy be issued or delivered in Florida. See Winterthur Int'l, Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214, 1215-16 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990) (policy issued in of § 626.906....

...Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n, 206 F.2d 518, 522 (5th Cir.1953) ("We construe the legislation to apply only to policies of insurance delivered in Florida to Florida residents."). Thus, an out-of-state insurer cannot be haled into Florida court under § 626.906 simply because it accepts premiums from Florida on an insurance policy issued and delivered in another state. See Kanawha, 394 So.2d at 1147; Parliament, 333 So.2d at 518. Because we conclude that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Blue Cross of Wisconsin under § 626.906, we need not determine whether it had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy the Due Process Clause....

...n; (2) The solicitation of applications for such contracts; (3) The collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments, or other considerations for such contracts; or (4) Any other transaction of insurance. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 626.906 (West 1996 & Supp. 1999). The reach of this statute is, of course, a question of Florida law. See Madara, 916 F.2d at 1514. Walter argues that the district court had jurisdiction over Blue Cross of Wisconsin under § 626.906, because Blue Cross collected premiums sent from Florida and made payments to health care providers in Florida for almost thirty years.4 Blue Cross responds that the Walters received their insurance policy while 4 Florida l...

...12 they lived in Wisconsin, and the third party administrator agreement it operates under prohibits Blue Cross from terminating the Walters’ policy because they moved to Florida. Florida cases interpreting § 626.906 focus on whether a nonresident insurer made a deliberate and voluntary choice to do business in Florida....

...1976) (premium payments by insureds who moved to Florida did not establish jurisdiction). For personal jurisdiction to attach, the insurer must issue or deliver the original policy in Florida, see Kanawha, 394 So.2d at 1147 (limiting jurisdiction under § 626.906 to cases “where the insurance contract is entered into or delivered in the State of Florida”), or reissue or amend the policy after the insured has moved to Florida....

...orida. See id. at 946-47 (“Under Lloyd and Bowman, Blue Cross’ 1994 issuance of its amended policy to appellant in Florida, and subsequent collection of premiums, are sufficient contacts with Florida to subject it to suit in this forum under [§ 626.906].”)....

...stated it would not decide whether merely receiving premiums and making payments for ten years was enough to confer jurisdiction over the insurer. See id. at 946. Walter argues that the district court had jurisdiction over Blue Cross under § 626.906(3), which explicitly lists the collection of premiums as an act that subjects a foreign insurer to suit in Florida, and § 626.906(4), which covers “[a]ny other transaction of insurance.” Florida courts, however, have limited the application of § 626.906 to insurance policies issued or delivered in Florida. See Bookman, 614 So.2d at 1182 (“[T]he statute only applies to policies held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida.”); Kanawha, 394 So.2d at 1147 (limiting § 626.906(3) “to a situation where the insurance contract is entered into 15 or delivered in the State of Florida”).5 We adopted a similar limitation for an earlier version of § 626.906....

...Iowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 206 F.2d 518, 522 (5th Cir. 1953) (“We construe the legislation to apply only to policies of insurance delivered in Florida to Florida residents.”). Thus, an out-of- state insurer cannot be haled into Florida court under § 626.906 simply because it accepts premiums from Florida on an insurance policy issued and delivered in another state. See Kanawha, 394 So.2d at 1147; Parliament, 333 So.2d at 518. Because we conclude that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Blue Cross of Wisconsin under § 626.906, we need not determine whether it had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy the Due Process Clause....

...Blue Cross of Wisconsin’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is due to be granted on that basis instead of for reasons having to do with the untimeliness of the opposition to that motion.6 5 Although a later Florida decision applied § 626.906(4) to an insurance policy held by a non-resident, that case did not question the requirement that the policy be issued or delivered in Florida....

...Eglin brought suit. Service of process was obtained on Parliament under Section 626.907, Florida Statutes. Parliament moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over the person, and moved to quash the service of process. Both motions were denied. Section 626.906, Florida Statutes, provides that: "Any of the following acts in this state, ......

...n of the insurer's agreement that such service of process is of the same legal force and validity as personal service of process in this state upon such insurer: "(1) The issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state ..." Section 626.906, Florida Statutes, does not require that the insurance company conduct extensive business in Florida....

...The fact that Davis was a resident of Florida is not sufficient, standing alone, to bring Parliament within the purview of the statute. In Parmalee v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Association, 206 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.1953), Section 625.30, Florida Statutes, now Section 626.906, Florida Statutes, was construed as follows: "It cannot be disputed that Florida has the power, within constitutional bounds, to prescribe the terms upon which insurance may be placed and kept in force upon its residents....

...We agree with the trial court that the insurer's act of reissuing the policy to a known Florida resident — the sole distinction between this case and Meador — is an act which subjects the company to the jurisdiction of the Florida court and the substituted service of process authorized by Section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Winterthur moved to dismiss on the grounds that Florida did not have in personam jurisdiction over Winterthur and that service of process was insufficient. The trial court denied the motion and Winterthur has appealed. The insured bases his claim of jurisdiction on section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1987) which provides in part: Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign or alien insurer is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer of the Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer ......

...r transaction of insurance. Winterthur does not dispute that it is an alien insurer which has not been authorized to transact business in Florida, see also id. §§ 624.06(3), 624.09(2), and therefore is an unauthorized alien insurer as described in section 626.906. Winterthur argues first, however, that section 626.906 is only available to an insured who is a resident of Florida, not to Palacios, who is a resident of Peru, and second, that Winterthur has performed no acts which would bring it within the ambit of the statute. Affidavits were filed to support the latter contention and contravene those of Palacios. Winterthur's initial contention — that section 626.906 is unavailable to a nonresident as a matter of law — must be rejected. While the protection of Florida residents is undoubtedly one objective of the statute, see id. § 626.905, it is not the sole objective. Id. Although subsections 626.906(1)(3) apply only to residents of Florida, subsection 626.906(4) contains no such limitation, and no basis appears on which such a limitation should be implied. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that language employed in subsection 626.906(4), "transaction of insurance," is a defined term within the Florida Insurance Code....

...(3) Effectuation of a contract of insurance. (4) Transaction of matters subsequent to effectuation of a contract of insurance and arising out of it. Section 624.10 is not limited, expressly or by implication, to transactions involving Florida residents. We conclude, therefore, that subsection 626.906(4) is available to a nonresident insured....

...Eglin National Bank, 333 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Parmalee v. Iowa Traveling *1216 Men's Association, 206 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 877, 74 S.Ct. 125, 98 L.Ed. 384-85 (1953). We disagree. Those decisions involve construction of what is now subsection 626.906(1), Florida Statutes. Drake and Parliament hold that subsection 626.906(1) is not available to a plaintiff who became a Florida resident after issuance of the insurance policy, where the foreign or alien insurer has no other contact with Florida. See generally Citizens Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 525 So.2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Parmalee sustained the statute as applied to an insured who was a resident of Florida at the time the policy was issued. None of those decisions construed subsection 626.906(4) or treated the issue presented here. To be sure, those decisions contain language suggesting that section 626.906 applies only to Florida residents, but as applied to subsection 626.906(4), those statements are dictum. Because the present subsection 626.906(4) employs a specifically defined term for purposes of the Insurance Code, we construe the statute in accordance with that definition. [1] Turning to Winterthur's second issue, we concur with the trial judge that the facts alleged by the plaintiff, and supported by affidavit, would, if proven, satisfy the criteria of subsection 626.906(4)....

...15, 79th Congress of the United States, chapter 20, 1st session, s. 340, as amended, which declares that the business of insurance and every person engaged therein shall be subject to the laws of the several states." Id. (emphasis added). The passages just indicated are consistent with the operative language of section 626.906, Florida Statutes, which contains some provisions expressly pertaining to residents and another (subsection 626.906(4)) which is not so confined....

...[2] These actions would also supply sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process clause. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). [*] In our original opinion we concluded that the terminology employed in section 626.906(4), "transaction of insurance," is a term defined by section 624.10, Florida Statutes....

...IAN, for these same medical expenses. Bookman has advanced two statutory bases for jurisdiction: (1) Florida's long-arm statute, section 48.193(1)(d), (g), Florida Statutes; and (2) the Unauthorized Insurer's Process Law (UIPL), sections 626.905 and 626.906, Florida Statutes....

...ping the benefit and protection of its laws. Bookman cannot establish the necessary minimum contacts with Florida through his own unilateral activities. Nevertheless, Bookman contends that in personam jurisdiction in this case can be predicated upon section 626.906, despite the fact that the statute only applies to policies held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida, [1] because appellees renewed Bookman's insurance policy after he moved to Florida....

...iness in this state, to Florida jurisdiction in suits by or on behalf of insureds or beneficiaries under insurance contracts issued or delivered in this state. The doing of any one of certain acts by the unauthorized insurer, which are enumerated in section 626.906, constitutes the appointment by the insurer of the Insurance Commissioner of Florida as its agent for service of process in any action arising out of the insurance contract....

...uster in order to permit the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. In short, due process considerations apply to the UIPL. Due process requires that in looking at the existence of minimum contacts, which are built into section 626.906, Florida Statutes, an evaluation be made whether these contacts were the result of deliberate and purposeful action on the part of the insurer, or whether these contacts were compelled by unilateral actions of the insured or were created by circumstances over which the insurer had no control....

...dent occurs in Florida and a member of the insured's household is injured. There is no dispute as to the fact that Tennessee Farmers has no offices in Florida nor is it authorized to do business here. Appellee did not proceed to effect service under section 626.906, Florida Statutes, [2] for obvious reasons....

...ept service to become authorized to conduct insurance transactions in Florida pursuant to Section 624.422, Florida Statutes, or over an insurer which is unauthorized to conduct insurance transaction in Florida but performs one of the acts set out in Section 626.906....

...ndisputed that Kentucky Mutual had never conducted any insurance transactions in Florida, it is clear that it had no outstanding obligations in Florida resulting from those transactions at the time the insurance commissioner was served in this case. Section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1977), provides: Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign or alien insurer is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer of the insura...

...d to do business therein; (2) The solicitation of applications for such contracts; (3) The collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments or other considerations for such contracts; or *675 (4) Any other transaction of insurance. Service under Section 626.906 is not binding on appellant since Kentucky Mutual has not conducted any of the acts set out in Section 626.906. Appellees further argue on appeal that independent of Sections 624.422 and 626.906, the Florida courts would have personal jurisdiction over Kentucky Mutual because it assumes the position of the uninsured tortfeasor motorist....

...complaint. *494 Substitute service on Florida's Insurance Commissioner is permitted under the Unauthorized Insurers Process Law where a foreign insurer has "by mail or otherwise" issued and delivered a contract of insurance to a resident of Florida. § 626.906, Fla.Stat....

...distributors, brokers, or agents of any nature in the state of Florida. In their written responses to Alfa's motion to quash, Borden and Ocean argued that service of process was appropriate under Florida's Unauthorized Insurer's Process Law (UIPL), section 626.906, Florida Statutes (2000), citing Winterthur International Ltd....

...orations authorized to do business therein; (2) The solicitation of applications for such contracts; (3) The collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments, or other considerations for such contracts; or (4) Any other transaction of insurance. § 626.906. Borden cannot establish long-arm jurisdiction under subsections 626.906(1), (2), or (3) because, on their face, these sections are available only to Florida residents. See Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So.2d 961, 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (concluding that the fact that the insured was a resident of Florida, standing alone, was not sufficient to bring the foreign insurer within the purview of section 626.906 because insured was also required to show that the policy was issued and delivered in Florida); Am....

...4th DCA 1996) ("Substitute service on Florida's Insurance Commissioner is permitted under [the UIPL] where a foreign insurer has `by mail or otherwise' issued and delivered a contract of insurance to a resident of Florida."); Bookman v. KAH Incorporated, Inc., 614 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (stating that section 626.906 "only applies to policies held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida"); Hassneh Ins. Co. of Israel, Ltd. v. Plastigone Techs., Inc., 623 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stating that section 626.906 applies only to insurers that issue policies "held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida"); Winterthur Int'l Ltd. v. Palacios, 559 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (stating that "subsections 626.906(1)-(3) apply only to residents of Florida"); Parliament Life Ins. Co. v. Eglin Nat'l Bank, 333 So.2d 517, 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (stating that section 626.906 requires "issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this State")....

...ated in and doing business for Winterthur in Miami. The policy was later delivered to Palacios in Peru. When Palacios sued Winterthur for coverage, Winterthur alleged that because Palacios was not a resident of Florida, he could not avail himself of section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...(4) Transaction of matters subsequent to effectuation of a contract of insurance and arising out of it. The court noted that "[s]ection 624.10 is not limited, expressly or by implication, to transactions involving Florida residents" and concluded that subsection (4) of section 626.906 is therefore available to a nonresident insured. 559 So.2d at 1215. In response to the cases cited by Winterthur which contain language suggesting that section 626.906 applies only to Florida residents, the Third District observed that those decisions did not construe subsection 626.906(4) and concluded that, "as applied to subsection 626.906(4), those statements are dictum." Id....

...On its facts, we agree with the result in Winterthur because Winterthur, the insurer, had an authorized agent in Miami who solicited Florida insurance business. Thus, the court could have found jurisdiction under section 48.193, the general longarm statute, without reaching the issue of whether section 626.906(4) applied to non-residents. However, we disagree with the Winterthur analysis of section 626.906....

...at the Third District considered in denying Winterthur's motion for rehearing. See 559 So.2d at 1216-17. Based on our reading of the statute and the statement of legislative purpose, we conclude that the Florida legislature has expressly stated that section 626.906 (as a whole) was meant to protect Florida residents....

...In Walter v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 181 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir.1999), the Eleventh Circuit called into question the soundness of Winterthur. In a footnote, the court cited to Winterthur noting that while the Winterthur court allowed section 626.906(4) to be used by a nonresident, the Winterthur court failed to "question the requirement that the policy be issued and delivered in Florida [to a Florida resident]." Walter, 181 F.3d at 1205 n. 5. In the text surrounding the footnote, the Walter court cites to Florida cases for the notion that to avail himself of section 626.906, the plaintiff must be a Florida resident who was issued and delivered an insurance policy in Florida....

...Not only do we disagree with the Winterthur analysis of the UIPL's statement of the legislative purpose, we also question the court's reliance on section 624.10 of the Insurance Code. The Winterthur court used section 624.10 to separate subsection (4) of section 626.906 from the "contracts" issued and delivered in Florida to a Florida resident to which subsections (1)-(3) are clearly aimed....

...Moreover, courts have a duty to "interpret a legislative Act so as to effect a constitutional result if it is possible to do so." Cassady v. Consol. Naval Stores Co., 119 So.2d 35, 37 (Fla.1960). Although our decision does not require us to address the constitutional issue, we believe that to construe section 626.906(4) as being available to nonresidents would broaden the statute's jurisdictional reach such that it would violate constitutional due process requirements, given the paucity of Alfa's contacts with Florida. Subsequent to Winterthur, the Third District once again addressed the provisions of section 626.906 in Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel, Ltd. v. Plastigone Technologies, Inc., 623 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and without acknowledging Winterthur, stated that section 626.906 applies only to insurers that issue policies "`held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida.'" 623 So.2d at 1225 (quoting Bookman, 614 So.2d at 1182, citing Parliament, 333 So.2d at 518)....

...Instead, it made a blanket statement that the statute is available only to Florida residents whose insurance policies were issued and delivered in Florida. Hassneh, 623 So.2d at 1225. With this opinion, we agree. For the reasons we have expressed, we hold that subsection (4) of section 626.906 is available only to Florida residents in the same manner as subsections (1), (2), and (3), and to the extent that this holding is in conflict with Winterthur, we certify conflict....

...Because Borden is not a Florida resident, we conclude that the Florida court did not have personal jurisdiction over Alfa and reverse the trial court's order denying Alfa's motion to quash service of process. Our determination that Borden did not establish jurisdiction under section 626.906(4) renders moot the remaining issues raised in this appeal....

...This argument not only has no merit but also was not raised below and, therefore, is waived. [2] Alfa argues that Borden's amended complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to create jurisdiction under subsection (4). We need not decide this issue because even if the allegations are sufficient, we conclude that section 626.906(4) applies only to Florida residents.

...The Michigan insurer objected to personal jurisdiction, showing that it is not licensed to sell insurance in Florida. It has no offices or agents here. It does not advertise to sell insurance in Florida. The owner argued that Florida has jurisdiction over the Michigan insurer under the unauthorized insurers process law. Section 626.906(1) of that statute creates Florida jurisdiction over an unlicensed foreign insurer because of “the issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state.... ” § 626.906(1), Fla....

...rmers against Plastigone. Plastigone sued Hassneh for indemnification, and alleged that the Israeli companies had refused to indemnify Plastigone. Plastigone demanded that Hassneh provide coverage and a defense. Plastigone served Hassneh pursuant to section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...e’s address in Miami, and had issued the policies to the Israeli manufacturers knowing that a risk of harm to a Florida corporation was foreseeable. Hassneh moved to quash service of process, alleging that it was not subject to service pursuant to section 626.906 and that it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to establish in personam jurisdiction....

...h has no contractual relationship with Plastigone, and has never engaged in any negotiations in Florida. The trial court denied Hassneh’s motion to quash service of process; Hassneh appeals. Hassneh is not subject to service of process pursuant to section 626.906, which applies only to insurers that issue policies “held by Florida residents which are issued and delivered to them in Florida.” Bookman v. KAH Incorporated, Inc., 614 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA1993) (citations omitted). See also Parliament Life Ins. Co. v. Elgin Nat’l Bank, 333 So.2d 517, 518 (Fla. 1st DCA1976) (to be subject to service pursuant to section 626.906, insurer must issue and deliver contract in Florida; fact that insured is resident of Florida is not sufficient in itself to bring insurer within purview of statute)....

...Compare First of Georgia Ins. Co. v. Lloyd, 557 So.2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA1990) (Georgia insurance company that increased coverage on insured vehicle and collected additional premium from insured after learning that insured had moved to Florida subject to service of process under section 626.906). It is uncontroverted that Hassneh issued and delivered the policies to the Israeli companies in Israel. The policy’s identification of a Florida corporation in its vendor’s endorsement is not sufficient to bring Hassneh within the ambit of section 626.906....

...e with both the Florida statute pursuant to which service was obtained and the constitutional due process test of minimum contacts. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989). Even if service of process could be effected pursuant to section 626.906, Hassneh does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to subject it to in per-sonam jurisdiction without offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice....

...Hassneh’s risk of loss through Plastigone, a Florida resident, although foreseeable, was not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to quash service of process. LEVY, J., concurs. . Section 626.906, Florida Statutes provides, in pertinent part: "Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign insurer, alien insurer, or person representing or aiding such an insurer is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer ......

...e interlocutory order, certainly not at least by Harb-our, the movant who caused the complaint to be dismissed. The fact that the trial judge expressed the view in his order of dismissal that Harbour was amenable to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to Section 626.906, Florida Statutes, and purported to authorize the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days from his order and to cause it to be served upon Harbour in accordance with Section 626.907, Florida Statutes, does not render the order one which is the proper subject of review by this Court....

jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer: section 626.906, Florida Statutes,3 which specifically pertains

...rida so that jurisdiction attaches. Neither suggestion has merit. Payment of premiums for life insurance by mail from Florida to a foreign insurer is similarly insufficient to justify in personam jurisdiction over the foreign insurer. That aspect of Section 626.906 Florida Statutes (1979) refers to and its effect is limited to a situation where the insurance contract is entered into or delivered in the State of Florida....

contracts; or (4) Any other transaction of insurance. § 626.906, Fla. Stat. (1995). Purposeful availment of Florida

...The two forms of attempted service did not satisfy statutory requirements. See Biscayne Athletic Club, Inc. v. Iacono, 367 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); §§ 48.081, 48.161, 48.194, Fla.Stat. (1985). Further, there was no showing that plaintiff complied with the requirements of section 626.906, Florida Statutes (1985) in serving defendant, The Swedish Club, through service on the insurance commissioner....