25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 375b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2504EPInsurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum selection clause — Where forum selection clause in PIP policy mandates that action against insurer be brought in court in county where covered person lived at time of accident, and there is no evidence that enforcement of clause would be unreasonable or unjust, PIP case brought in Sarasota County by assignee of insured who resided in Hillsborough County at time of accident is transferred to Hillsborough County
E.P., an insured individual by and through his/her assignee TAMPA BAY IMAGING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County. Case No. 2016-SC-006019-NC. May 31, 2017. Maryann Boehm, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REVISEDMOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF VENUE ORIN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER VENUE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on Defendant’s Revised Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue. Having heard the arguments from Counsels of record at a hearing on May 22, 2017, having reviewed the pleadings, motions, and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background:
This is a P.I.P. case. The Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of an accident that allegedly occurred on February 19, 2016, when the assignor/insured was allegedly involved in a motor vehicle-related accident that occurred in Hillsborough County, Florida. Following the accident, the assignor/insured sought benefits under a policy of personal injury protection insurance issued by the Defendant.
Contained within the underlying policy was the following provision, located at “Part E — GENERAL PROVISIONS”,in a section called “LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US”:
(PART E Cont’d.)
C. Unless we agree otherwise, any legal action against us must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county and state where the covered person lived at the time of the accident.
It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, the assignor/insured resided in Hillsborough County. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is bringing this action for PIP benefits pursuant to a written Assignment of Benefits. Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically references that this lawsuit is being brought pursuant to a policy providing PIP coverage; that the assignor/insured assigned to the Plaintiff a written absolute assignment of benefits that includes the rights to any causes of action under the applicable policy; and recognized that the Plaintiff now stands in the shoes of the assignor.
Legal Conclusions:
This Court previously analyzed the same policy language in Physicians Group, LLC, As Assignee of Stephen Felia, v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No.: 2016-SC-007273 NC (Fla. Sarasota Cnty. Ct) and ruled that the forum selection language was mandatory and must be enforced, absent a showing that it was unreasonable or unjust. The Court sees no reason to detract from its prior ruling.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the forum selection clause, contained in Paragraph “C” of Part E — General Provisions, as directly quoted above, is mandatory and clearly mandates that forum lies in the county where the insured resided at the time of the accident; in this case Hillsborough County. Having determined that the Defendant’s forum clause is mandatory, the Court must enforce it, absent a showing that it is unreasonable or unjust.
Here, there has been no evidence provided by the Plaintiff, nor any argument put forth by the Plaintiff, that enforcement of the forum clause would be unreasonable or unjust.
Since the Plaintiff is bringing this litigation pursuant to an Assignment of Benefits, the Plaintiff now steps into the shoes of its assignor. If the assignor/insured were to have brought this P.I.P-litigation against his insurer, he would have had to bring suit in Hillsborough County pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. That same obligation applies to the Plaintiff by virtue of the Assignment of Benefits.
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN-PART and DENIED IN-PART. The Court denies Defendant’s Revised Motion to Dismiss, but grants the Revised Motion to Transfer Venue from Sarasota County to Hillsborough County. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this cause to Hillsborough County, Florida. Defendant shall pay any costs associated with the transfer.
Furthermore, Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery within thirty (30) days of the date on this Order.
