23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 620a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2306LANDInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Venue — Venue is proper in selected county where insurer that is foreign corporation doing business in Florida has agents or other representatives in that county — Conclusory statement listing where repairs were performed, where insured and insurer entered into contract and where insured resides does not satisfy requirement to show impropriety in plaintiff’s choice of venue through sworn testimony or statement
CLEAR VISION WINDSHIELD REPAIR LLC as Assignee of GAIL LAND, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No.14-005941 COWE 82. October 15, 2015. Honorable Alan R. Marks, Judge. Counsel: Emilio Stillo and Andrew Davis-Henrichs, Pliego & Stillo, P.A., Davie; Larry M. Kopelman, Lawrence M. Kopelman, P.A., for Plaintiff. Kyle Maxson, Martinez Denbo, LLC, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO TRANSFER VENUE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration on the Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue on January 30, 2015, and the Court having reviewed the Motion, the entire Court file, the relevant legal authorities, and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background: This matter concerns a claim for assigned windshield repair insurance benefits. On or about June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Broward County, Florida. On or about September 10, 2014, the Defendant served its Motion to Transfer Venue. In support of its Motion, Defendant subsequently filed the affidavit of adjuster Michele Kucinski.
Conclusions of Law: “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) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1775b]. 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. 1st DCA 1988); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275, 1278-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Florida Forms, Inc. V. Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 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).
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §47.051, “[a]ctions against a foreign corporation doing business in this state shall be brought in the county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the case of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” It is undisputed that Defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida with agents or other representatives in Broward County. Thus, Plaintiff’s venue selection is presumptively correct.
The affidavit filed in support of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue was little more than a conclusory statement listing where the repairs were performed, where the insured and Defendant entered into the insurance contract, and where the insured resides. The affidavit failed to disclose any information as to the necessity, relevance, or significance of the evidence to be presented by the witnesses or parties; let alone that it would be inconvenient for them to travel to Broward County. The Court would need this information to determine whether a particular witness’ testimony is material. See Colonial Chiropractic Center (a/a/o Eddy Francois) v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a (Fla. Broward County, Cnty. Ct. 2005)(Zeller, J.).
A plaintiff does not have the burden of defending its venue choice unless the “defendant has challenged venue with an affidavit controverting a plaintiff’s venue allegations.” Suncoast Home Improvements, Inc. v. Robichaud. 106 So.3d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D265a]; Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels. Ltd., 699 So.2d 839, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly D2300d].
This Court finds that the Defendant has failed to show, through sworn testimony or statements, any impropriety of Plaintiff’s choice of venue. Therefore, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion to Transfer be and the same is hereby DENIED.
