Seven Hartford entities just won a jurisdictional battle against MSP Recovery in a Florida appeals court – and it could signal trouble for MSP's litigation playbook.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal on April 29, 2026, reversed a lower court order that had denied Hartford's motion to dismiss a second amended complaint brought by MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC. The appellate court found that the trial court got it wrong on two counts: Hartford had not abandoned its challenge to personal jurisdiction, and long-arm jurisdiction could not be extended over the Hartford entities.
The case began when MSP filed an action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court seeking a pure bill of discovery and declaratory judgment under Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault statute. MSP's second amended complaint claimed that the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over 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.
Hartford pushed back, filing a motion to dismiss and arguing that MSP's allegations regarding personal jurisdiction fell short. MSP responded to the motion but notably did not argue that Hartford had given up its jurisdictional challenge. The trial court, however, denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that Hartford had abandoned its jurisdictional defense – even though MSP itself had not raised that argument.
On appeal, a three-judge panel reviewed the matter fresh, as is standard for jurisdictional questions. The court found that nothing Hartford had done in the litigation amounted to abandonment of its jurisdictional challenge. Under well-established Florida case law, defensive actions taken by a defendant do not amount to giving up a jurisdictional objection, so long as the defendant has not sought affirmative relief from the court that would be inconsistent with contesting jurisdiction.
On the substance of whether Florida courts could exercise jurisdiction over Hartford, the appellate court pointed to its own recent ruling in USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, decided in 2025. In that case, the Third DCA had declined to extend long-arm jurisdiction under circumstances the court described as nearly identical to those identified by MSP in the Hartford matter. That precedent proved decisive.
The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss the action entirely.
For the insurance industry, the decision is another data point in what appears to be an emerging pattern. Florida's Third District Court of Appeal has now declined to extend long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state insurers in MSP Recovery cases on more than one occasion, and the reasoning has been consistent. Insurers facing similar claims from MSP Recovery in Florida may find stronger footing to challenge jurisdiction where the circumstances mirror those in the USAA and Hartford decisions.
