8 March 23-29, 2023 miaminewtimes.com | browardpalmbeach.com New Times | music | cafe | culture | Night+Day | News | letters | coNteNts | Month XX–Month XX, 2008 miaminewtimes.com MIAMI NEW TIMES | MUSIC | CAFE | FILM | ART | STAGE | NIGHT+DAY | METRO | RIPTIDE | LETTERS | CONTENTS | T here was a time you could walk into nearly any grocery store, belly up to any local bar, or stop by your neigh- borhood liquor store and find M.I.A. Beer Company’s brews. Despite being one of Miami-Dade’s longest-standing craft breweries, nowadays you can only purchase M.I.A. beer by the can at the brewery’s Doral taproom — or out of state. “’Why can’t you buy M.I.A. Beer Company beers locally anymore?’ It’s a question I’ve heard many times in the past six months, and one I’m finally ready to discuss,” M.I.A. managing partner Eddie Leon tells New Times. “The simple answer is that we no longer have a distributor that can deliver our beer in Florida.” So why not just find a new distributor? It’s not that simple. For M.I.A., distribution of its beer in Florida has become a complicated legal situation that ties into the state’s three-tier system and the franchise laws that control beer distribution. Initially drafted in the 1930s, these franchise laws were written to serve small, independent distributors that, in those post-Prohibition times, relied on only a few large beer brands such as Budweiser and Coors. When the laws were written, Florida’s independent craft beer scene hadn’t yet come into existence, and in the 1980s, when the laws were last amended, the state’s craft brewing industry was in its infancy. Four decades later, Fort Lauderdale-based Tarpon River Brewing managing partner and Florida Brewers Guild legis- lative chairman Adam Fine tells New Times that the indus- try dynamic has flipped. “There are now hundreds of small breweries, and only a handful of large distributors that — under current Florida statutes — hold franchise rights over the breweries they rep- resent,” Fine explains. That’s because by law, once both parties have signed, a contract between brewer and distributor continues in per- petuity — as in forever. There are precious few exceptions, and most of them favor the distributor. “The way the law is written, it’s virtually impossible for a brewery to leave a distributor when there’s a dispute,” says Fine. “That isn’t the case for wine or spirits. There’s no other business I can think of that is restricted and held hostage in this way.” Such is the plight of M.I.A., which signed with Cavalier Distributing, an Indiana-based company that currently rep- resents 15 Florida craft breweries, in 2016. At the time, Eddie Leon says, his brewery’s sales grew rapidly in South Florida and expanded into regions like Tampa and Orlando. “The industry was thriving, and our goal was to hit 120,000 cases yearly. So we reinvested, bought more equipment, and ramped up production,” the brewer recounts. “In 2017, we al- most hit our mark, selling just under 100,000 cases.” When COVID-19 hit in 2020, M.I.A. lost onsite sales. Leon didn’t expect distribution sales to plummet as well, but retail sales dropped 40 percent that year. The subsequent two years were even worse. “I knew at the rate we were going, it wasn’t good,” the brewer says. “According to my projections, if it kept going this way, we wouldn’t be selling any beer at all pretty soon.” To address the continued sales decline, and in accor- dance with Florida Statute 563.022, M.I.A. asked Cavalier to propose a “corrective action plan” to readdress the brew- ery’s sales strategy. Cavalier had 30 days to respond with a plan and 90 days to set matters right. “When Cavalier failed to take action, they were technically in breach of their duties, and we could, in theory, terminate the business relationship,” Leon says. To that end, M.I.A. sent a notice of termination to Cava- lier in April 2022, stating that the distributor had failed to comply with the distribution agreement. Cavalier disagreed, stating M.I.A. did not have good cause to terminate the agreement and was in breach of contract. In a letter dated May 5, 2022, Cavalier alleged that M.I.A. had failed to participate in annual meetings, develop its own plan for brand growth, and provide Cavalier with sales in- formation to help promote its products or a production cal- endar within a commercially reasonable timeframe. “M.I.A.’s termination of the agreement violates Florida law and gives rise to substantial liability,” Cavalier’s attorney, Patrick Kasson, wrote. “Although Cavalier would like to re- solve this matter cordially, I am also writing to place M.I.A. on notice of the claims against it.” In July, Cavalier filed suit against the brewer. In practical terms, the ongoing litigation precludes the brewery from signing with another distributor. The prospect of going to court brings its own set of com- plications. “It’s highly likely we’d win at trial, but our company most likely would not survive being out of distribution during that process,” Leon adds. “We want to be among the first to stand up and take action. My goal is to set a precedent for these types of relationships moving forward.” Representatives from Cavalier Distributing and the Florida Beer Wholesalers Association declined to comment for this story. Is It High Time to Change the Law? For Mike and Brooke Malone, the couple behind Vero Beach-based Walking Tree Brewery, the state’s franchise
