Background
Michael and Alaina Pugh filed a breach-of-contract action against ASI Preferred Insurance Corporation in Pinellas County, where ASI has its principal place of business. ASI moved to dismiss, arguing that Palm Beach County was more convenient because the insured property and relevant witnesses were located there.
The circuit court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on forum non conveniens grounds. The Pughs appealed the nonfinal order, contending that Pinellas County was a statutorily proper venue and that ASI had not proved Palm Beach County was more convenient. ASI conceded error on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District held that dismissing the action for forum non conveniens was an abuse of discretion. Under sections 47.011 and 47.051, Florida Statutes, Pinellas County was a legally permissible venue because ASI maintained its principal place of business there, and the Pughs were entitled to make the initial venue selection.
Once ASI sought to overcome that selection under section 47.122, it bore the burden of presenting affidavits or other sworn evidence showing substantial inconvenience, undue expense, or that the interest of justice required a different venue. ASI submitted no such evidence. The court therefore reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s selection of a statutorily authorized venue is entitled to deference.
- A defendant seeking a convenience-based venue change must support the request with affidavits or other sworn proof.
- Assertions that the property and witnesses are located elsewhere, without evidentiary support, do not justify displacing the plaintiff’s venue choice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a Florida court’s discretion to change venue for convenience is limited by an evidentiary requirement. Insurers and other corporate defendants cannot obtain dismissal or transfer merely by arguing that another county has a closer connection to the dispute.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of submitting sworn evidence addressing inconvenience, expense, witnesses, and the interests of justice when challenging an otherwise proper venue.