12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Where insurer’s motion to transfer venue from Broward County to Orange County states that the accident occurred and the accident witnesses are located in Orange County and insured received treatment in Orange County from a doctor who has since relocated to Broward County, but insurer failed to set forth anticipated substance or significance of testimony of witnesses, trial court is unable to properly weigh the convenience of key witnesses and insurer has failed overcome medical provider’s forum selection by showing substantial inconvenience or undue expense — Motion to transfer venue denied
COLONIAL CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a Florida Corporation, (a/s/o Eddy Francois), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 04-5026 COSO (60). January 7, 2005. Sharon L. Zeller, Judge. Counsel: Law Office of Russell Lazega, P.A., North Miami. Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLaine, P.A.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue and/or in the Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue, and the court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court finds as follows:
(1) Colonial Chiropractic filed an action against State Farm in Broward County, Florida on July 7, 2004, for a breach of contract for failure to pay PIP benefits pursuant to an insurance policy issued to State Farm’s insured. State Farm filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative to transfer venue, alleging that the action should be transferred to Orange County due to improper and inconvenient forum. State Farm filed an affidavit of the claims representative who was the adjuster handling this claim.
The facts as presented to this court are as follows:
a) The accident occurred in Orange County.
b) Mr. Francois is a resident of Orange County.
c) The witnesses to the accident are in Orange County.
d) The adjuster is in Duval County.
e) Mr. Francois received medical treatment in Orange County.
f) State Farm has offices in Broward and Orange County.
g) The doctor who provided treatment relocated to Broward County.
h) The doctor’s medical records of Eddy Francois are located in Broward County.
(2) While the trial court has broad discretion in venue matters, it has been held that the movant must furnish a sufficient factual basis for the exercise of that discretion. It must be based upon a showing that the parties or witnesses will suffer substantial inconvenience or undue expense due to the chosen forum. GEICO v. Burns, 672 So.2d 834, (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996).
(3) More recently, in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the First District highlighted the importance of the movant’s responsibility to set forth the anticipated substance or significance of the testimony of witnesses so that the trial court may conduct a well-informed balancing test.
“In order for a court to consider the convenience of the witnesses, the court must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony.” Id. [Hu vs. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)]. As the Hu court observed, it is critical for this information to be provided to enable the trial court to properly weigh the convenience of all of the key witnesses under section 47.122.
The court would need this information to ascertain whether a particular witness’ testimony is material. Second, the court might desire to have this information in an effort to locate the trial in a forum most convenient to the greatest number of key witnesses, since the quality of testimony by a key witness may well outweigh the quantity of testimony by a number of witnesses testifying to relatively unimportant matters. R.C. Storage One v. Strand Realty, 714 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
(4) The affidavit filed by State Farm fails to demonstrate any inconvenience or undue expense which would justify a change of venue and State Farm failed to meet its burden of proof.
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be and is hereby DENIED. State Farm has failed to meet their burden of overcoming the Plaintiff’s forum selection by showing substantial inconvenience or undue expense.
* * *
