13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 330a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum non conveniens — No abuse of discretion in granting motion to transfer venue from Broward County to Palm Beach County — Although insurer’s claims office and medical provider’s counsel’s office were both located in Broward County, Palm Beach County is where insureds reside, accidents occurred, medical services were provided, and unspecified witnesses were located — No merit to argument that insurer did not establish Palm Beach County as more convenient forum because it failed to produce affidavit bearing information regarding identity of witnesses from Palm Beach County and significance of their testimony where affidavits regarding significance of unspecified witnesses’ testimony provided sufficient evidence for court to consider convenience of parties and witnesses and interest of justice

FISHMAN & STASHAK, M.D.’S, P.A., d/b/a GOLD COAST ORTHOPEDICS, also d/b/a GOLD COAST ORTHOPEDICS AND REHABILITATION, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case Nos. 04-17476 CACE (05), 04-17477, 04-17495, 04-17496, 04-17543, 04-17607, 04-17649, 04-17650, 04-17651, 04-17653, 04-17655, 04-17658, 04-17659, 04-17660, 04-17662, 04-17666, 04-18484 (Consolidated). December 16, 2005. Counsel: Laura M. Watson. Joseph G. Murasko. Nancy W. Gregoire.

OPINION

(RICHARD D. EADE, J.) THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Appellant’s, Fishman & Stashak, M.D.’s, P.A., d/b/a Gold Coast Orthopedics, also d/b/a Gold Coast Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Appeal of the Order granting Appellee’s, Progressive Express Insurance Company (“Progressive”), Motion to Transfer Venue from Broward County to Palm Beach County. The Court having reviewed the record in its entirety, heard argument of counsel, considered relevant law, and being otherwise advised in the premises affirms the ruling of the trial court for the following reasons:

In each of the 17 now consolidated appeals, Appellant, as Plaintiff, filed a complaint against Progressive in Broward County for non payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. §627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. Progressive filed a Motion to Transfer Venue based on forum non conveniens. Progressive provided affidavits from its claim representatives, the insureds and the insureds’ counsel indicating the inconvenience Appellant’s choice of forum presented. At the hearing on this Motion, the trial court considered the affidavits and individually reviewed each case by inquiring into the location of the accidents, the location of subsequent medical treatments, the residences of the insureds and whether each individual case involved the reduction of PIP benefits. While Progressive’s claims office and Appellant’s counsel’s office are both located in Broward County, the record indicates the insureds are residents of Palm Beach County, the accidents occurred in Palm Beach County, and the medical services were rendered in Palm Beach County.

During the hearing, Progressive stated its intention to call additional unspecified witnesses from Palm Beach County, including surgeons and billing clerks, indicating their testimony at trial would provide important information relating to the usual and customary charges in the affected community. Progressive indicated it would provide the names of the witnesses if the trial court so required. Over Appellant’s objections, the trial court granted Progressive’s Motion to Transfer Venue without requiring the names of these prospective witnesses. This appeal follows the denial of Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

A transfer of venue based on forum non conveniens is permitted for the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses or in the interest of justice. §47.122, Fla. Stat. Unless the complaint on its face supports a forum non conveniens transfer, the party requesting a change of venue must support its motion by affidavit, live testimony or other evidence offered under oath that provides the trial court with sufficient information regarding the interests and limitations of the parties and witnesses. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchant’s Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

The decision to grant or deny a change of venue based on forum non conveniens is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of abuse. Darby v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co., 752 So.2d 102, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Appellant argues Progressive did not establish Palm Beach County as a more convenient forum than Broward County since it failed to produce any affidavit bearing information regarding the identity of key witnesses and the significance of their testimony. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

This Court acknowledges the importance of the identity of the witnesses and the significance of their testimony in determining the convenience of witnesses. However, Appellant’s reliance on the aforementioned cases is misplaced where, as in the instant case, the trial court is provided with affidavits from the insureds and the significance of the unspecified prospective witnesses’ testimony is set forth. Moreover, the record here indicates the insureds reside in Palm Beach County, the accidents occurred in Palm Beach County, and the medical services were rendered in Palm Beach County. See Brown, 690 So.2d at 1380 (noting the appropriateness of transferring venue from a forum county to a county where the accident occurred and many witnesses were located); Hu, 426 So.2d at 1279-1280, (affirming the trial court’s decision to transfer venue given the discretionary nature of the act and the existence of substantial competent evidence to support the transfer).

In light of the record and the statutory requirements, the trial court was provided with sufficient evidence to appropriately consider the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses and the interest of justice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Progressive’s Motion. Jensen v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 781 So.2d 468, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Braun v. Stafford, 529 So.2d 745, 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order of the trial court is AFFIRMED.