## Facts

- A 13-year-old passenger suffered a severe allergic reaction after eating shellfish aboard a cruise ship owned by Norwegian Cruise Line Limited.
- The ship’s physician, a nonresident of Florida, attempted multiple intubations; the child died before intubation was successfully completed.
- The incident occurred while the ship was 11.7 nautical miles east of Florida’s shore.
- Evidence indicated the western edge of the Gulf Stream was approximately 14 nautical miles off the Florida coast that day.
- The decedent’s parents filed a wrongful-death/medical-malpractice action in Florida state court against the cruise line and the ship’s doctor.
- The doctor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the conduct occurred outside Florida.
- The trial court dismissed the claims against the doctor, finding the event occurred outside Florida’s territorial waters; claims against the cruise line remained pending.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged medical malpractice occurring 11.7 nautical miles off Florida’s east coast, but shoreward of the Gulf Stream’s western edge, occurred within Florida’s territorial waters under the Florida Constitution.
2. Whether, if within Florida’s territorial waters, the conduct constitutes “committing a tortious act within this state” sufficient for long-arm personal jurisdiction over a nonresident physician under § 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).
3. Whether federal law or international law limits Florida’s territorial waters to three nautical miles for purposes of state-court personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held the incident occurred within Florida’s territorial waters as defined by article II, section 1 of the Florida Constitution (to the edge of the Gulf Stream or three miles, whichever is greater).
- Because the alleged tort occurred “within this state,” Florida’s long-arm statute authorized personal jurisdiction over the nonresident physician.
- The court rejected arguments that the Submerged Lands Act or international law restricted Florida to a three-mile boundary for this jurisdictional question.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident for claims arising from “committing a tortious act within this state.” § 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997).
- Florida’s Atlantic boundary extends to the Gulf Stream’s edge when that lies farther than three miles from the coastline. Fla. Const. art. II, § 1.
- If the tortious medical treatment occurred within Florida’s territorial boundaries, that fact satisfies the long-arm statute’s “within this state” requirement for jurisdiction.
- Federal law governing seabed/resource rights (including the Submerged Lands Act) does not bar Florida from applying its constitutional boundary definition to determine whether surface conduct occurred within the state for long-arm jurisdiction purposes.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged malpractice aboard a cruise ship 11.7 nautical miles off Florida’s east coast, but shoreward of the Gulf Stream, occurred within Florida’s territorial waters under the state constitution; thus, Florida courts could exercise long-arm personal jurisdiction over the nonresident ship’s doctor and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was reversed.


Benson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 859 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003)