21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 569a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106ISOLInsurance — Venue — Medical provider has right to bring action against foreign insurer in county where insurer has agents — Insurer that has not established substantial inconvenience or undue expense has not met burden of demonstrating that transfer is appropriate under forum non conveniens statute
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLP, as assignee of Katty Isolampi, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2013 22485 CONS. March 3, 2014. Robert A. Sanders, Jr., Judge. Counsel: David B. Alexander, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Juliet Fleming Stage, DeLand, for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before this Honorable Court on February 11, 2014 and this Honorable Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss or in Alternative Transfer to Orange County is hereby DENIED. Venue is proper in Volusia County as it is undisputed that Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a foreign corporation doing business in this state and has agents in Volusia County. See Fla. Stat. 47.051 (2013). “[W]hen suing a foreign corporation, one has the right to bring one’s action anywhere business is transacted in Florida subject to the forum non conveniens statute. . .” Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 300 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1974). Further, Plaintiff’s choice of venue can not be disturbed as Defendant failed to meet its burden under forum non conveniens. Defendant’s affidavit presented to the Court is legally insufficient to support a transfer of venue as it does not establish substantial inconvenience or undue expense. See R.C. Storage One, Inc. v. Strand Realty, Inc., 714 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1775b]. In addition, this matter involves a legal issue to be decided by the Court and therefore Plaintiff’s forum selection is correct. See Safety National Casualty Corp. v. Florida Municipal Ins. Trust, 818 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D1172c].
2. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and/or Motion for Enlargement of Time of Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part. Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time of Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery is hereby GRANTED. Defendant shall serve a response and responsive documents to Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce within twenty (20) days from February 11, 2014. Defendant shall serve verified answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories within twenty (20) days from February 11, 2014. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order regarding time to respond is hereby MOOT.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike, Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions is hereby DENIED. Pursuant to the parties stipulation and the Court’s Order executed October 14, 2013, Defendant was required to file a responsive pleading within twenty (20) days of the date of the pretrial conference on October 15, 2013. Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading and instead filed a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. See Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D1250a], Vanderberg v. Rios, 798 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 4th 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2548b].
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is hereby GRANTED. Defendant shall coordinate the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative within thirty (30) days from February 11, 2014 and said deposition shall occur within ninety (90) days from February 11, 2014.
* * *
