Title: Ex parte American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. v. Restoration Coatings & Sealants, Inc.)

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 09/17/2010  
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2010
____________________
1091192
____________________
Ex parte American Resources Insurance Company, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: American Resources Insurance Company, Inc.
v.
Restoration Coatings & Sealants, Inc.)
(Mobile Circuit Court, CV-10-900339)
MURDOCK, Justice.
American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. ("ARIC"),
filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Mobile Circuit
1091192
2
Court 
against 
Restoration 
Coatings 
& 
Sealants, 
Inc.
("Restoration Coatings").  ARIC is an Alabama corporation with
its principal place of business in Mobile County;  Restoration
Coatings is an Alabama corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Clair County.  ARIC petitions this Court for
a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate an
order granting Restoration Coatings' motion to transfer the
case to the St. Clair Circuit Court based on Ala. Code 1975,
§ 6-3-21.1(a) (the forum non conveniens statute).  We grant
the petition and issue the writ.  
In August 2009, Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC ("Brasfield &
Gorrie"), filed a third-party complaint against Restoration
Coatings and several other defendants in an action pending in
Escambia County, Florida ("the Escambia County action").  The
action against Brasfield & Gorrie arose out of alleged defects
in the construction of the Sea Watch Condominiums, which are
located in Escambia County, Florida.  Brasfield & Gorrie
served as the general contractor on the condominium project;
Restoration Coatings was one of its subcontractors.  
In its third-party complaint, Brasfield & Gorrie alleged
that Restoration Coatings had performed defective work related
1091192
The Escambia County action apparently was still pending
1
when ARIC filed its petition for a writ of mandamus with this
Court.
3
to the exterior caulking, waterproofing, and deck coating at
the condominium project.  Its claims against Restoration
Coatings were based on an indemnity provision in Restoration
Coatings' 
subcontract, 
common-law 
indemnity, 
and 
contribution.
ARIC, 
which 
had 
issued a commercial general-liability
insurance 
policy 
to 
Restoration 
Coatings, 
defended 
Restoration
Coatings in the Escambia County action under a reservation of
rights.    
1
In February 2010, ARIC filed its complaint in the Mobile
Circuit Court, seeking a judgment declaring whether there had
been an "occurrence," as defined in the policy it had issued
to 
Restoration 
Coatings, 
and, 
if 
there 
had 
been 
an
"occurrence," whether it occurred during the coverage period
under the policy.  ARIC also alleged that the policy did not
cover certain damage that was the subject of Brasfield &
Gorrie's third-party complaint.  ARIC requested that the court
enter an order declaring that it had no duty to defend or to
indemnify Restoration Coatings. 
1091192
4
Restoration Coatings filed a "Motion for Change of Venue
Pursuant 
to 
the 
Doctrine 
of 
Forum 
Non 
Conveniens."
Restoration Coatings asserted that the case should be
transferred from the Mobile Circuit Court to the St. Clair
Circuit Court pursuant to § 6-3-21.1(a) because, it argued,
St. Clair County was a more convenient forum for the parties
and the witnesses and the interest of justice necessitated a
transfer.  ARIC opposed the motion.
In April 2010, the trial court entered an order granting
Restoration Coatings' motion.  ARIC petitions this Court for
a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the
April 2010 order.
"'A writ of mandamus is a 
"'"drastic and extraordinary writ, that
will issue only where there is: (1) a clear
legal right in the petitioner to the order
sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the
respondent to perform, accompanied by a
refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another
adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked
jurisdiction of the court."'
"Ex parte Wood, 852 So. 2d 705, 708 (Ala. 2002)
(quoting Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628
So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993)).  Mandamus is the
appropriate device by which to challenge a trial
court's decision on a motion for a change of venue.
Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So. 2d 919 (Ala. 2004).
Furthermore, 
'[t]his 
Court 
reviews 
mandamus
1091192
Restoration Coatings did not argue to the trial court
2
that Mobile County was an improper venue under § 6-3-7(a),
Ala. Code 1975.  Thus, any such argument has been waived.  See
5
petitions seeking review of a venue determination by
asking 
whether 
the 
trial 
court 
exceeded 
its
discretion in granting or denying the motion for a
change of venue.'  Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc.,
882 So. 2d 307, 310 (Ala. 2003) (citing Ex parte
Scott Bridge Co., 834 So. 2d 79, 81 (Ala. 2002)).
'Also, in considering such a mandamus petition, this
Court is limited to those facts that were before the
trial court.'  Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882
So. 2d at 310 (citing Ex parte Pike Fabrication,
Inc., 859 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Ala. 2002))."
Ex parte Fuller, 955 So. 2d 414, 415 (Ala. 2006).
Alabama's forum non conveniens statute provides:
"With 
respect 
to 
civil 
actions 
filed 
in 
an
appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction
shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses,
or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil
action or any claim in any civil action to any court
of general jurisdiction in which the action might
have been properly filed and the case shall proceed
as though originally filed therein. ..."
Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1(a).  
It is undisputed that St. Clair County would be a proper
venue for this case.  The sole basis for Restoration Coatings'
motion was that a transfer was proper under § 6-3-21.1(a),
specifically that a transfer was required based upon (1) "the
convenience of parties and witnesses" or (2) "the interest of
justice."    ARIC argues that Restoration Coatings did not
2
1091192
Ex parte Navistar, Inc., 17 So. 3d 219, 221 n.1 (Ala. 2009).
Likewise, no issue has been presented as to whether § 6-3-
21.1(a) might be inapplicable on the ground that venue in
Mobile County was improper.  See Ex parte New England Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 952, 956 (Ala. 1995) ("The doctrine
of forum non conveniens ... codified at § 6-3-21.1 ... has a
field of operation only where an action is commenced in a
county in which venue is appropriate.").  Thus, ARIC has
waived any argument that § 6-3-21.1(a) is inapplicable.  Under
the circumstances, we must treat Mobile County as a proper
venue for this case.  
6
meet its burden of proof as to either of the grounds for
transfer.  See Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d
788, 789 (Ala. 1998)("A defendant moving for a transfer under
§ 6-3-21.1 has the initial burden of showing that the transfer
is justified, based on the convenience of the parties and
witnesses or based on the interest of justice.").  We agree.
The only evidence Restoration Coatings submitted in
support of its motion for a change of venue was a copy of its
articles of incorporation, which indicate that its principal
office is located in St. Clair County and that its officers
are residents of St. Clair County, and an affidavit from Tony
Hodges, which states:
"1.  I am a principal in Restoration Coatings &
Sealants, Inc. ('Restoration'), a St. Clair County,
Alabama corporation.
"2.  Since its incorporation, Restoration maintains
its office and primary place of business in
1091192
We note that statements 4 and 5 are in the present tense.
3
Thus, it is unclear whether Restoration Coatings had contacts,
agents, employees, or property in "Mobile, Alabama" at some
time before Hodges executed the affidavit, including when ARIC
issued the policy or when Restoration Coatings performed the
work for Brasfield & Gorrie in Escambia County, Florida.
Also, the statements refer to Mobile, Alabama, which could
either be a reference to the City of Mobile or to Mobile
County.  Thus, it is unclear whether Restoration Coatings has
or had contacts, agents, employees, or property in Mobile
County in places other than the City of Mobile.  Nevertheless,
these ambiguities do not affect our analysis.  In addition, we
note that Restoration Coatings alleged in its motion that ARIC
"does business throughout the state."  It offered no evidence
to support the allegation, though it does not appear that ARIC
disputed it.  Even assuming that statement were properly
supported, however, it likewise does not affect our analysis.
It too is an ambiguous statement; it does not address
specifically whether ARIC did business in St. Clair County or
whether ARIC's business "throughout the state" had any
particular relation to or impact upon St. Clair County or its
residents.
7
St. Clair County, Alabama, at 1901 Courson Court,
Suite 104, Leeds, Alabama.
"3.  Restoration purchased its policy from American
Resources Insurance Company ('ARIC') through an
independent insurance agent, and the policy was
delivered directly to it at Restoration's office at
1901 Courson Court, Suite 104, Leeds, Alabama, in
St. Clair County.
"4.  Restoration has no contacts in Mobile, Alabama.
"5.  Restoration has no agents, employees or
property in Mobile, Alabama."3
Also, it is undisputed that ARIC has its principal place of
business in Mobile County.
1091192
8
The purpose of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to
"prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and also to
protect 
witnesses, 
litigants, 
and 
the 
public 
against
unnecessary expense and inconvenience."  Ex parte New England
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 952, 956 (Ala. 1995).  In
applying § 6-3-21.1, this Court has noted that a trial court
should not grant a motion to transfer a case based on "the
convenience of parties and witnesses" "unless the forum to
which the case is to be transferred is '"'significantly more
convenient' than the forum in which the action is filed, as
chosen by the plaintiffs."'"  Ex parte Bloodsaw, 648 So. 2d
553, 555 (Ala. 1994) (quoting  Ex parte Johnson, 638 So. 2d
772, 774 (Ala. 1994), quoting in turn Ex parte Townsend, 589
So. 2d 711, 715 (Ala. 1991)); see also Ex parte New England
Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra.
The evidentiary submission of Restoration Coatings does
not support the conclusion that the St. Clair Circuit Court is
a significantly more convenient venue for the parties and the
witnesses than is the Mobile Circuit Court.  Although the
transfer might result in a more convenient venue for
Restoration Coatings, that is not the test.  See Ex parte
1091192
9
Nichols, 757 So. 2d 374, 379 (Ala. 1979)("[W]hile a trial in
Winston County might be more convenient for the Nicholses, it
would be less convenient for the PBI principals, both of whom
are key witnesses. ...  The doctrine of forum non conveniens
'provides for transfer to a more convenient forum, not to a
forum likely to prove equally convenient or inconvenient.'").
"Where, as in this case, 'one party or the other will be
equally inconvenienced, [the] plaintiff's choice of forum will
not be disturbed.'"  Id.  Nor is there any evidence concerning
how convenient St. Clair County would be for any witness who
will be called at trial.  Indeed, for all that appears, the
pertinent witnesses will be persons who performed work on the
condominium project in Escambia County, Florida, which is much
closer to Mobile County than to St. Clair County.  Restoration
Coatings offered no evidence, however, concerning who the
witnesses at trial might be, where they resided, or how the
St. Clair Circuit Court might be a more convenient venue for
them than the Mobile Circuit Court.  Thus, the trial court
could not properly have concluded that the case should be
transferred to St. Clair County  "for the convenience of
parties and witnesses."
1091192
10
Likewise, the evidence does not support the conclusion
that "the interest of justice" mandates that the case be
transferred to St. Clair County.  As this Court stated in
Ex parte McKenzie Oil Co., 13 So. 3d 346, 349 (Ala. 2008):
"'This Court has held that litigation should be
handled in the forum where the injury occurred.'  Ex
parte Fuller, 955 So. 2d 414, 416 (Ala. 2006),
citing Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So. 2d 898, 904 (Ala.
2004).  Furthermore, the 'interest of justice' prong
of § 6-3-21.1 requires 'the transfer of the action
from a county with little, if any, connection to the
action, to the county with a strong connection to
the action.'  Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727
So. 
2d 
at 
790. 
Thus, 
'in 
analyzing 
the
interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1, this Court
focuses on whether the "nexus" or "connection"
between the plaintiff's action and the original
forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the
plaintiff's forum with the action.'  Ex parte First
Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So. 2d 906, 911
(Ala. 2008).  McKenzie therefore had the burden of
demonstrating '"that having the case heard in [the
county to which transfer was sought] would more
serve the interest of justice ...."'  Ex parte First
Tennessee Bank, 994 So. 2d at 909 (quoting Ex parte
Fuller, 955 So. 2d at 416)."
In support of its motion to transfer, Restoration
Coatings focused on the fact that the insurance policy was
"negotiated, issued, and delivered" in St. Clair County, which
ARIC concedes in its petition to this Court.  As ARIC
correctly notes, however, there is no issue in this case
concerning whether ARIC issued the policy or whether some
1091192
11
fraud or other wrongful conduct occurred in St. Clair County
in relation to the issuance of the policy.  The only issue is
whether the events that form the basis for the Escambia County
action fall within the coverage of the policy.  
ARIC has its principal office in Mobile County.  That
county appears to have as much interest in the proper
resolution of a coverage dispute between its resident
insurance corporation and the insured corporation from
St. Clair County as does St. Clair County.  Certainly it
cannot be said that the "'"connection" between the plaintiff’s
action and the original forum [Mobile County] is [not] strong
enough to warrant burdening the plaintiff’s forum with the
action.'"  Ex parte McKenzie Oil Co., 13 So. 3d at 349.
Likewise, it cannot be said that Mobile County is "'a county
with little, if any, connection, to the action,'" id., or that
in comparison St. Clair County is a "'county with a strong
connection to the action.'" Id.  In short, the facts before us
simply do not support the conclusion that Restoration Coatings
has met its burden of proving that transferring the case to
1091192
We note that the present case is distinguishable from
4
those cases relied upon by Restoration Coatings in which the
plaintiff did not reside in the county where the action was
filed and/or in which the complained-of wrongful action
occurred in the county to which the defendant was seeking to
have the case transferred.
12
St. Clair County would "more serve the interest of justice"
than leaving the case in Mobile County.4
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Stuart, and Bolin, JJ., concur.