14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 794a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Where medical provider’s only nexus to county where suit was filed is fact that insurer has office there, and substantially all other aspects of case are elsewhere, motion to transfer venue is granted — Sanctions — Section 57.105 sanctions are not available for opposing motion to transfer venue
FLORIDA MEDICAL & INJURY CENTER, INC., as assignee or Mathew Suri, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE CO., PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE CO., Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit for Seminole County. Case No. 06-SC-2907. May 31, 2007. Rom W. Powell, Judge. Counsel: Michael Tierney, for Plaintiff. Neil Andrews, Adams & Diaco, P.A., Tampa, for Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS
This case came on to be heard on May 24, 2007 on defendant’s Motions to Dismiss or Transfer Venue, for Protective Order and for Fla. Stat. 57.105 Sanctions, and plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Answers, to Strike and for Protective Order, and Objections. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ written submissions, legal authorities cited and arguments of counsel.
This is yet another contentious, litigious PIP case filed in Seminole County where the only nexus is that defendant Progressive has an office1 here, and the accident, assignor’s residence, assignee’s office, health care treatment, witnesses’ residences and offices of both counsel occurred in or have their location in some other county — mostly in Orange and sometimes in Osceola, Brevard or Polk. Plaintiff’s counsel continue to file these kinds of cases despite numerous prior orders2 of this Court transferring them to more convenient forums.
In this case, defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue, and later filed a supporting affidavit of its claims representative. Plaintiff’s attorney attempted so-called “venue discovery” by filing a notice of serving Venue Discovery; propounding interrogatories and request for admissions; requesting defendant produce its affiant for a deposition on the venue issues; filing a motion to compel answers to interrogatories for venue discovery and a motion to deem defendant’s objections waived to venue discovery. Plaintiff’s attorney appeared at the hearing and argued against the transfer motion.
At the hearing it was established that:
1. Defendant had an office in Seminole which only sold policies and had no connection with this case.
2. The accident causing injuries to the insured assignor Suri occurred in Osceola.
3. Suri resides in Osceola.
4. The assignee plaintiff corporation has its office in Osceola.
5. All medical treatment rendered Suri occurred in Osceola.
6. Defendant’s office which is handling this claim, and therefore at least one of its witnesses is in Polk which is closer to Osceola than it is in Seminole.
7. Both attorneys offices are in Orange.
Consequently, as it is said in common parlance: it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to foresee that the most convenient forum would be Osceola County and that this Court would transfer the case there.
Defendant’s 57.105 Motion for Sanctions is based upon the ground that plaintiff’s counsel knew or should have known that proper venue was Osceola County. It contained a demand that plaintiff either transfer the case to that county or agree to the defendant’s motion to transfer. Although I ruled at the hearing that I would grant this motion, I changed my mind after further study of the statute. The statute speaks only of“claims” or“defenses”. Under a plain reading of the statute, a motion to transfer venue is neither. I am aware of no appellate opinion which has extended the statute to matters other than claims (which are causes of action pled by a plaintiff or counter-plaintiff), or defenses (meaning affirmative defenses pled by a defendant or counter-defendant in their answer). Consequently, without supporting precedent I am reluctant to extend the statute as defendant requests. However, that being said, I should also add that this Court looks with great disfavor upon what appears to be this emerging practice of the plaintiff’s PIP bar to engage in wide-ranging venue discovery. Such is simply not legally necessary to prosecute a PIP claim. Most, if not all of the facts to establish a more convenient forum are known to plaintiffs counsel before filing suit, or if suit is filed in Seminole County, soon thereafter without extensive discovery. A short, simple set of interrogatories served with the complaint and summons asking the names and residence or office location of defendant’s witnesses, location of defendant’s claims office, etc. should suffice to establish the unknown factors. What plaintiffs counsel did in this case was legally unnecessary. This should be taken into account when awarding attorney’s fees if plaintiff prevails in this case.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Transfer venue is granted. This case is hereby transferred to Osceola County, Florida. Defendant shall pay costs and expenses of transfer.
2. Defendant’s 57.105 Motion for Sanctions is denied, but with the finding regarding the award of plaintiff’s attorneys fees and interest set forth above.
3. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is granted. The propounding of and response to all discover by either side is hereby stayed until the transfer to Osceola County becomes effective.
4. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Answers, to Strike and for Protective Order, and Objections are overruled.
__________________
1This office is not one which handles claims. It is one where policies are sold.
2Nine such orders were attached to and served with defendant’s 57.105 motion for sanctions. The reasons why this practice of wholesale filing of PIP cases in Seminole County got started is unclear. Plaintiff’s counsel say they can bring the cases to speedier conclusion here, but I do not think this is correct. Defense counsel say it is to increase attorneys fees if plaintiff’s prevail.
