20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 155a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2002OLIVInsurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Insurer, which through offices of its independent brokers, regularly transacts substantial part of its usual and customary business from office within Broward County, cannot shield itself from being sued in that county — Motion to transfer venue is denied
HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF MIAMI, LLC, d/b/a STAND-UP MRI OF MIAMI, a/a/o Pedro Oliver, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. CONO11-11329 (70). October 24, 2012. Honorable John D. Fry, Judge. Counsel: Travis L. Stock, Weinstein Law Firm, Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Gregory Blackburn, Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO TRANSFER VENUE
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on October 10, 2012, on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and the Court having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed the court file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. This is a small claims lawsuit for unpaid personal injury protection benefits filed by Plaintiff on October 10, 2011, in Broward County, Florida.
2. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure have not been invoked in this matter.
3. This lawsuit was served on the Defendant on December 01, 2011.
4. A pre-trial conference was held on December 12, 2011.
5. Counsel for the Defendant appeared at the pre-trial conference and orally preserved his objection to the Plaintiff’s choice of venue.
6. On January 20, 2012, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss solely on the grounds of improper venue.
7. In support of its motion to dismiss for improper venue, Defendant relies on the affidavit of Sandra Neira Covolo, which essentially states that (1) United Automobile Insurance Company does not have any office in Broward County, Florida; (2) the corporate offices and company headquarters are located in Miami-Dade County; and (3) United Automobile Insurance Company does not employ insurance agents in Florida, but instead uses independent contractors.
8. In addition, Defendant relies on the affidavit of its litigation adjuster, which states that “The claim file, the PIP adjuster, and the Litigation adjuster of United Automobile Insurance Company are all located in Miami-Dade County. The provider is located in Miami-Dade County with billing offices in NY and mailed all bills to Defendant’s Miami-Dade County office. The claim was adjusted in and payment was issued from the Miami-Dade County office. The accident is alleged to have occurred in Miami-Dade County. The investigating police department for the alleged accident is in Miami-Dade County. The witness listed on the police report are from Miami-Dade County as is the claimant assignor. Moreover, claimant is not listed on the police report at issue in this litigation thereby further necessitating extensive discovery in Miami-Dade County.”
9. United Automobile Insurance Company is a Florida profit corporation.
10. Florida Statute § 47.051 states, in pertinent part, that “Actions against domestic corporations shall be brought only in the county where such corporation has, or usually keeps, an office for transaction of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”
11. This Court recognizes that other county courts have found that in a lawsuit for unpaid personal injury protection benefits, venue is proper in any county in the state. See e.g., Tallahassee MRI, P.A. (a/a/o Wilbur Manning) v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 68c (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 2003); East Side Chiropractic Center, Inc. (a/a/o Dexter Jones) v. United Automobile Ins. Co., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 215a (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 2010).
12. This Court finds Tallahassee MRI, P.A. to be persuasive. In Tallahassee MRI, Judge DeLuca reasoned that a domestic corporation that regularly conducts business in Broward County, Florida consents to being sued in Broward County, Florida. See also, Health Diagnostics of Miami, LLC, d/b/a Stand-up MRI of Miami (a/ a/o Yosdany Tapanes) v. United Automobile Ins. Co., CONO 11-05974(73) (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 2012).
13. According to the affidavit filed in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and the deposition transcript of Defendant’s Senior Vice President of Claims, Sandra Neira Covolo, United Automobile Insurance Company does not employ any insurance agents in Florida. Instead, Defendant relies solely on independent insurance brokers, located throughout the State of Florida, to sell insurance policies.
14. In addition, Defendant’s Senior Vice President of Claims testified that United Automobile Insurance Company does not sell any insurance policies out of its corporate headquarters but instead refers people to one of the independent brokers.1
15. The “independent brokers” that United solely relies upon to sell policies of insurance are located throughout the entire state of Florida, including Broward County.2
16. In fact, United Automobile Insurance Company, through its independent brokers, regularly issues insurance policies to over an estimated 1,000 Broward County residents each year.3
17. United Automobile Insurance Company argues that since it is a domestic corporation and only has an office in Miami-Dade County venue cannot be proper in Broward County because United Automobile does not have, or usually keep, any office for the transaction of its customary business in Broward County. The Court is not persuaded by this technical argument.
18. It is a well-settled fundamental rule of statutory construction in Florida that legislative intent is the polestar by which the court must be guided when reviewing a statute and the legislative intent must be given effect even if it contradicts the strict letter of the statute. In addition, it is well settled in Florida that a construction of a statute that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result or would render a statute purposeless should be avoided.
19. If this Court were to adopt Defendant’s technical argument, that would result in a situation where United Automobile Insurance Company would be susceptible to being sued strictly in Miami-Dade County, despite the fact that it benefits from the thousands of insurance policies issued throughout the entire State of Florida.
20. United Automobile Insurance Company’s customary business is selling and issuing policies of automobile insurance to residents of the State of Florida. Based on the testimony of United’s Corporate Representative, the only way that a resident of Florida can purchase a United Automobile policy is through one of the many independent brokers located throughout the State of Florida. In other words, a resident cannot purchase a policy of insurance directly from United or at United’s corporate headquarters.
21. In Defendant’s Partial Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 40, Defendant states, in pertinent part, “please see attached a copy of Defendant’s ‘Brokering Agency Agreement’ form. Each individual insurance broker who is authorized to provide applications to United has completed this agreement.”
22. The “Brokering Agency Agreement” states, in pertinent part, in paragraph 3(a):
“Subject specifically to the limitations and other terms and conditions of this Agreement, MGA hereby grants to Agency the usual and customary insurance brokering agency authority to:
(i) Solicit insurance and accept applications, and
(ii) Collect and receive premiums, with respect to the lines and classes of insurance business . . . .
(iii) Solicit premium finance business and accept applications on behalf of MGA’s affiliate, the United Premium Finance Company.”4
23. Under the unique facts and circumstances as set forth above, it is this Court’s holding that United Automobile Insurance Company, through the offices of its independent brokers, has and regularly transacts a substantial part of its usual and customary business from an office within Broward County, Florida, and therefore cannot shield itself from being sued in Broward County, Florida.
24. It is well settled in Florida that a plaintiff has the option of venue selection, and as long as that selection is one of the statutory alternatives, it should not be disturbed. R.C. Storage One, Inc. v. Strand Realty, 714 So. 2d 634 (4th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1775b].
25. Defendant was unable to cite to any case law demonstrating that Plaintiff’s choice of venue was improper in this case.
26. Based on the forgoing, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED.
__________________
1See Deposition Transcript, page 9, lines 19-25; page 10, lines 1-2.
2See Deposition Transcript, page 10, lines 3-4.
3See Deposition Transcript, page 12, lines 5-23.
4MGA stands for “Managing General Agency” for United Group Underwriters, Inc.
* * *
