17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 215a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1703JON2
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Where insurer has failed to show through sworn testimony or statements how it is inconvenienced or prejudiced by medical provider’s selection of venue, motion to transfer venue is denied
EAST SIDE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., a/a/o Dexter Jones, Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 09-008939 COCE 50. January 5, 2010. Peter Q. Skolnik, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein. Fesner Petion.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER FOR FORUM NON-CONVENIENS
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on December 8, 2009 on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer for Forum Non-Conveniens, and the Court, having heard argument from counsel, reviewed the file and the affidavits filed by the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. The above-captioned matter arises out of a claim for personal injury protection benefits. On or about March 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Broward County.
2. On May 1, 2009, Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “UNITED”) served its Motion to Transfer for Forum Non-Conveniens, requesting that this matter be transferred to Miami-Dade County
3. “A plaintiff has the option of ‘venue selection,’ and, as long as that selection is one of statutory alternatives, it should not be disturbed,” R.C. Storage One, Inc. v. Strand Realty, Inc., 714 So.2d 634, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 47.011, “actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”
4. The plaintiff’s selection of venue is presumptively correct and the party challenging venue has the burden to demonstrate impropriety of plaintiff’s choice. See Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, 530 So.2d 1069 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1988); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275, 1278-79 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1983); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So.2d 730 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1975). Thus, a plaintiff’s selection will not be disturbed if its venue choice is consistent with one of the statutory alternatives pursuant to section 47.051, Fla. Stat. (2005). See Perry Building Systems, Inc. v. Hayes & Bates, Inc., 361 So.2d 443 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1978).
5. “Other county courts have found that in an action for personal injury protection benefits, venue is proper in any county in the state,” Tallahassee MRI, P.A. v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 68c (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct., Nov. 17, 2003). See also Lasiter v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 859a (Fla. Polk Cty. Ct. 2001).
7. The case law is clear that “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 existence 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); Colonial Chiropractic Center v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a (17th Cir. Ct., Jan. 7, 2005).
8. This Court finds that UNITED failed to furnish a sufficient factual basis for this Court to consider a change of venue, and UNITED has failed to show this Court, through sworn testimony or statements of the parties or witnesses, how the Defendant is inconvenienced or prejudiced.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer for Forum Non-Conveniens be and the same is hereby Denied.
