MORRISSETTE V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2009 » MORRISSETTE V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 07-2162

Case Date: 12/30/2009

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Opinion filed December 30, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D07-2162 Lower Tribunal No. 07-15095 ________________

Evelyn K. Morrissette,
Appellant, vs.

Norwegian Cruise Line Limited d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line, and/or Norwegian Cruise Line America,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. The Ferraro Law Firm and Dino G. Galardi, for appellant. Mase Lara Eversole and Curtis J. Mase, Rachel S. Cohen and Joel V. Lumer for appellee. Before WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. Although Ms. Morrissette timely brought this action on May 21, 2007, for personal injuries suffered as a passenger on board the Norwegian Sun, "within one

(1) year from the day when the injury . . . occurred," on June 4, 2006, as the ticket provided, she did so in the circuit court of Miami-Dade County, rather than, as the contract also required, "before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida." For that reason, it was dismissed below. We affirm. See Leslie v. Carnival Corp., ___ So. 3d ____ (Fla. 3d DCA Case nos. 3D06-2226, 3D06-2228, opinion filed, Jan. 2, 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D105], on rehearing en banc, ___ So. 3d ____ (Fla. 3d DCA Case nos. 3D06-2226, 3D06-2228, 3D071009, 3D07-627, opinion filed, Nov. 25, 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D2448]. Ms. Morrissette has lost nothing substantively by this decision because, on the authority of the equitable tolling principle applied in Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2008), see Carnival Corp. v. Booth, 946 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the federal District Court has denied Norwegian's motion to dismiss her identical, "protective" action in that court, even though it was filed there on July 19, 2007, after the one year period had expired: The Eleventh Circuit in Booth held that, under nearly identical circumstances to the instant case, equitable tolling was appropriate: Booth initially timely filed suit in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Despite the state courts' eventual ruling that venue was improper, which ruling resulted in dismissal, Booth in no way slept on his claims against Carnival. Even though Booth filed the instant federal suit after the contractual limitation period had run, Carnival was 2

aware within the limitation period that Booth was actively pursuing his cause of action. The underlying policy of repose, reflected in the agreed-upon limitation period, and designed to assure fairness to Carnival, is not violated by equitable tolling in this case. To the contrary, the interests of justice are best served here . . . by allowing the parties to resolve Booth's claims on the merits. Id. at 1152. Morrissette v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., No. 07-21866, slip op. at 2 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2009) (quoting Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148, 1152 (11th Cir. 2008)). Affirmed.

3

Download MORRISSETTE V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE.pdf