25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 561a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2506FELIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Venue — Forum selection clause — Where forum selection clause in PIP policy mandates that action against insurer be brought in county where covered person resided 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
PHYSICIANS GROUP, LLC as assignee of Stephen Felia, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County. Case No. 2016 SC 007273 NC, Division D. May 15, 2017. Maryann Boehm, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDEDMOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF VENUE ORTO TRANSFER VENUE BASED ON MANDATORYFORUM SELECTION CLAUSE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue or to Transfer Venue Based on Mandatory Forum Selection Clause. Having heard the arguments from Counsels of record at a hearing on May 4, 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 January 17, 2014, when assignor/claimant, Stephen Felia, was allegedly involved in a motor vehicle-related accident that occurred in Hillsborough County, Florida. Following the accident, the claimant sought benefits under a policy of personal injury protection insurance issued by the Defendant to Mr. Felia.
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 covered person, in this case Mr. Felia, resided in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff is bringing this action for PIP benefits pursuant to a written Assignment of Benefits that was signed by the insured, Mr. Felia. The Assignment specifically assigned to Physicians Group, LLC any and all MedPay and PIP benefits, including the right to sue.
Leal Conclusions:
The Court agrees with the Defendant that the forum provision, contained in Paragraph “C” of Part E — General Provisions, as directly quoted above, clearly mandates that forum lies in the county where the insured resided at the time of the accident; in this case Hillsborough County. Consequently, the Court reads the Defendant’s forum provision as being mandatory. 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 that enforcement of the forum clause would be unreasonable or unjust. The record indicates that the providers who rendered treatment to Mr. Felia are already located in Hillsborough County.
Since the Plaintiff is bringing this litigation pursuant to an Assignment of Benefits, the Court recognizes that the Plaintiff now steps into the shoes of its assignor, Mr. Felia. If Mr. Felia 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 which assigned Mr. Felia’s right to sue.
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED ED IN-PART and DENIED IN-PART. The Court denies Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss, but grants the Amended 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 May 4, 2017.
