Case Search

Please select a category.

CARDINAL CHIROPRACTIC CENTERS, CORP., (Patient: CLARK BRIZARD), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 719a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1708BRIZ

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Where named insured and his injured child reside in Collier County, all medical services at issue were provided at facility in Collier County, and only nexus to Palm Beach County is location of medical provider’s attorney’s office, motion for change of venue is granted

CARDINAL CHIROPRACTIC CENTERS, CORP., (Patient: CLARK BRIZARD), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 502009-SC015125 XXXXSB. May 3, 2010. Reginald R. Corlew, Judge. Counsel: Nick Zacharewski. Mary Valladares, Matt Hellman, P.A., Plantation.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE BASED UPON FORUM NON-CONVENIENS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on April 19, 2010, for hearing of the Defendant’s Motion For Change of Venue Based Upon Forum Non-Conveniens by Defendant STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and the Court having reviewed the Motions and relevant legal authorities, heard arguments of counsels, and been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:

Nature of the Case

The Plaintiff, Cardinal Chiropractic Center S. Corp, sues the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, alleging that the Defendant has failed to pay certain Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits in accordance with the applicable insurance policy and the Florida Stat. § 627.736 et., seq., for treatment and services allegedly rendered by the Plaintiff to a Clark Brizard, a minor child of the named insured, from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 7, 2008. Plaintiff basis for filing the suit in Palm Beach County, Florida is the general allegation that Plaintiff’s principle place of business is in Palm Beach, County Florida and that Defendant is a foreign corporation that maintains agents in Palm Beach County, Florida and therefore proper venue is Palm Beach County. Plaintiff cites the following cases in support of its position: Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Services, 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4d 1975), Carlson-Southeast Corporation v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1d 1988), Graham v. Graham648 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4d 1995).

Defendant argues that although plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumed correct if statutorily proper, the venue choice must be based on the balancing of considerations of the parties and witnesses. Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The convenience of the witnesses is the single most important consideration of the three statutory factors because material witness should be located near the forum to allow for live testimony. Ford Motor Co. v. James2010 Fla. App Lexis 4950 (Fla. 4DCA 2010). In support Defendant files its corporate representative’s affidavit attesting that Clark Brizard, and the named insured resided in Collier County, where he received all the services at issue at Plaintiff’s facility and the only nexus to Palm Beach County is Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Wynn Drywall, Inc., v. Aequicap Program Adm’rs, Inc.953 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007).

Conclusions of law

The Court having reviewed the Motions and relevant legal authorities, heard arguments of counsels, and been fully advised in the premises, it is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUGED that: Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue Based Upon Forum Non-Conveniens is hereby GRANTED and this cause of action shall be transferred to a court of proper jurisdiction in Collier County, Florida and that Defendant shall pay transfer fee pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.091.

__________________

AGREED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion To Stay, and the parties being in agreement, and the Court having reviewed the Motions and been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:

ORDERED AND ADJUGED that:

Defendant’s Motion to Stay is hereby GRANTED pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue Based Upon Forum Non-Conveniens.

Skip to content