[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13718 

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-14342-DLG

MICHAEL KOSTELAC, 

TRACIE KOSTELAC, 

as assignees of Remos Aircraft, GmbH 

and Remos Aircraft, Inc., 

REMOS AIRCRAFT, GMBH, 

REMOS AIRCRAFT, INC., 

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ALLIANZ GLOBAL CORPORATE & SPECIALTY AG, 

Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 17, 2013)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 1 of 12 
2

PER CURIAM:

I.

This is a breach of contract action brought by Michael and Tracie Kostelac, 

citizens of Virginia, against Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG (“Allianz 

Global”), a German insurance company. 

Remos Aircraft GmbH (“Remos Germany”) is a manufacturer of sport 

aircraft. Remos Aircraft, Inc. (“Remos USA”) is the United States distributor for 

Remos Germany. Together they manufacture and distribute the Remos GX 

aircraft. On January 25, 2009, a Remos GX crashed in Florida and seriously 

injured Michael Kostelac. The Kostelacs sued Remos Germany and Remos USA 

for damages sustained from the accident in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida, No. 10-14062 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 

Remos Germany and Remos USA (collectively, “Remos”) are co-insureds 

under an Aviation Product Liability insurance policy issued by Allianz Global. 

The insurance policy was formed in Germany and is in German. After Remos 

gave Allianz Global notice of the Kostelacs’ suit and demanded that it provide for 

Remos’s defense, Allianz Global denied coverage under the insurance policy.

Because Allianz Global refused to cover Remos, the Kostelacs and Remos 

settled the underlying action and entered into a consent judgment in which Remos 

admitted liability to the claims brought in the suit and agreed that the value of the 

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 2 of 12 
3

damages sustained by the Kostelacs was $2,950,000. Remos also assigned all 

rights and interest under its insurance policy to the Kostelacs. In exchange, the 

Kostelacs agreed not to enforce their damages award against Remos.1

The Kostelacs, as Remos’s assignees, filed suit against Allianz Global for 

breach of contract based on its denial of coverage for the crash in Florida state 

court. Allianz Global removed the suit based on diversity of citizenship to the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where it filed a 

timely motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) on two 

grounds: (1) for improper venue based on a forum-selection clause in the insurance 

policy; and (2) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The District Court did not address Allianz Global’s forum-selection clause 

ground. Instead, it weighed the public and private interests in the litigation,

determined that Germany was a more appropriate forum for the suit, and then 

dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Kostelacs appeal the dismissal. We affirm the dismissal but on different 

grounds.

 1 This type of settlement agreement is known as a Coblentz agreement. Where an insurer 

has wrongfully refused to defend its insured and there is coverage under the policy, the insurer 

may be bound by the terms of a negotiated final consent judgment entered against its insured. 

See Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 416 F.2d 1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1969) (“[W]here a person is 

responsible over to another, either by operation of law or express contract, and he is duly notified 

of the pendency of the suit against the person to whom he is liable over, and full opportunity is 

afforded him to defend the action, the judgment, if obtained without fraud or collusion, will be 

conclusive against him, whether he appeared or not.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 3 of 12 
4

II.

We review the dismissal of a complaint based on forum non conveniens for 

abuse of discretion. Wilson v. Island Seas Invs., Ltd., 590 F.3d 1264, 1268 (11th 

Cir. 2009). A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal 

standard. Id. at 1269.

Dismissal based on forum non conveniens is appropriate where, inter alia, 

“the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate 

forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’

initial forum choice.” 2 Id. Though the strong presumption in favor of the 

plaintiff’s choice of forum is not dispositive to the analysis, the plaintiff’s choice is 

entitled to greater deference when the plaintiff has chosen his home forum. Piper 

Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981). When a United States citizen 

sues in a United States District Court, he is suing in his home forum. See Wilson, 

590 F.3d at 1269 (“[T]here is a presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s choice of 

forum, particularly where the plaintiffs are citizens of the United States.”); SME 

Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1101 

(11th Cir. 2004) (“This presumption in favor of plaintiffs’ initial forum choice in 

 2 In granting a forum non conveniens dismissal, the Distrct Court must also determine: (1) 

whether “an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, 

including all of the parties;” (2) whether “factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of trial 

in the alternate forum;” and (3) whether “plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum 

without undue inconvenience or prejudice.” Id.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 4 of 12 
5

balancing the private interests is at its strongest when the plaintiffs are citizens, 

residents, or corporations of this country.”).

In balancing the private interest factors,3 the District Court summarily 

concluded that the Kostelacs’ choice of forum was entitled to less deference 

because, as citizens of Virginia, they were suing outside of their home forum by 

bringing their suit in Florida. The District Court erred when it concluded that the 

Kostelac’s choice of forum as a matter of law was owed less deference simply 

because they filed suit in a state in which they were not residents. This court and 

the District Court are bound by precedent to apply a strong presumption to the 

plaintiffs’ choice of forum when the plaintiffs are American citizens who seek 

redress in American courts. Because the District Court did not apply that 

presumption when weighing the private interest factors, it abused its discretion.

III.

Nevertheless, we affirm the dismissal under the insurance policy’s forumselection clause for improper venue.4

 Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 

148 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that a motion to dismiss upon the 

 3 These private interest factors include: (1) the relative ease of access to evidence in the 

competing fora; (2) availability of witnesses and compulsory process over them; (3) the cost of 

obtaining evidence; and (4) the enforceability of a judgment. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh 

Produce N.A., Inc., 578 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009).

4 See Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e may 

affirm [the District Court’s] judgment on any ground that finds support in the record.”) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The parties fully briefed the validity of this ground for dismissal.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 5 of 12 
6

basis of a forum-selection clause is properly brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(3) as a motion to dismiss for improper venue). The forum-selection clause 

reads as follows: 

If the policy holder has his usual place of residency or a temporary 

place of residence in Germany, and if, during the period of the 

insurance contract, an insurable claim happens abroad[,] complaints in 

this matter can only be heard before a German court.

Because this is a removal case premised on diversity of citizenship, we look 

to the Erie5 doctrine to determine whether state or federal law governs the 

enforcement of the forum-selection clause. Under the Erie doctrine, we first 

“determine whether state and federal law conflict with respect to the disputed issue 

before the district court. If no conflict exists, then the analysis need proceed no 

further, for the court can apply state and federal law harmoniously to the issue at 

hand.” Esfeld v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A., 289 F.3d 1300, 1306–07 (11th Cir. 2002).

There is no conflict between Florida and federal law regarding the validity 

of a forum-selection clause. In this context,6 this circuit applies the test established 

 5 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

6 When a forum-selection clause calls for a suit to be brought in another federal court, 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a) governs the court’s decision whether to enforce the clause. See Stewart Org., 

Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 32 (1988) (noting that, as between conflicting state and federal 

law over a matter of procedure, the instructions of Congress are supreme); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been 

brought.”). When the forum-selection clause requires litigation in another country, federal 

statutory provisions governing the transfer of cases between federal district courts, such as 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a), do not apply. See Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1290 n.3.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 6 of 12 
7

in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1(1972), when reviewing a 

forum-selection clause. See Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1292 (applying Bremen to 

international forum-selection clause). Florida law applies the same test. See

Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 1986) (adopting the Bremen test). 

Finding no conflict between state and federal law in this matter, we apply Bremen.

A.

According to Bremen, a forum-selection clause is “prima facie valid and 

should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 

unreasonable under the circumstances.” 407 U.S. at 10 (internal quotation marks 

 

The Kostelacs claim that venue in a removed case is governed solely by the federal 

removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of 

Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 

States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the 

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”). 

Relying on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d 

531, 535–36 (6th Cir. 2002), the Kostelacs argue that once the case was removed pursuant to § 

1441(a), this rendered venue proper as a matter of statutory law and therefore precludes a finding 

of improper venue based on a forum-selection clause under Rule 12(b)(3).

We are not persuaded. The removal of an action from state to federal court does not 

waive any Rule 12(b) defenses, including seeking a Rule 12(b)(3) dismissal based on a forumselection clause. 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1395 (3d ed. 

2007). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to a civil action after it is removed from a 

state court,” without exception. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1). As the Supreme Court has indicated, 

“Congress has directed the District Court after a case has been removed to proceed therein as if 

the suit had been originally commenced in said district court.” Freeman v. Bee Mach. Co., 319 

U.S. 448, 454 (1943) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, parties are free to raise timely 

12(b)(3) motions after removal and under Lipcon, can properly seek dismissal for improper 

venue under this rule based on an international forum selection clause. Despite the Kostelacs’ 

contentions, this is not inconsistent with the dictum in Hollis v. Florida State University, 259 

F.3d 1295, 1299–1300 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[I]t is unnecessary (and, we think, confusing) to say, as 

have some courts and commentators, that a defendant who removes a case to federal court 

‘waives’ any venue challenges.”).

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 7 of 12 
8

omitted). Forum-selection clauses will be enforced unless the plaintiff makes a 

“strong showing” that “(1) their formation was induced by fraud or overreaching; 

(2) the plaintiff effectively would be deprived of its day in court because of the 

inconvenience or unfairness of the chosen forum; (3) the fundamental unfairness of 

the chosen law would deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) enforcement of the 

provisions would contravene a strong public policy.” Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1292.

As assignees, the Kostelacs stand in the shoes of Remos. Houk v. Comm’r 

of Internal Revenue, 173 F.2d 821, 825 (5th Cir. 1949)7 (“[A]n assignee . . . stands 

in the same position as its assignor had stood.”); accord Einstein’s Sons v. Shouse, 

5 So. 380, 384 (Fla. 1888) (“[A]n assignee is bound where his assignor would be 

bound.”). The Kostelacs do not possess any rights greater than what Remos 

formerly possessed under the agreement. Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 

273 F.2d 720, 725 (5th Cir. 1959) (“An assignee has no greater rights than his 

assignor.”); Hulet v. Denison, 1 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 1941) (same). Because the 

Kostelacs function as Remos’s stand-in under the insurance policy, the relevant 

inquiry is to apply the Bremen factors to the actual parties of the contract—Remos 

and Allianz Global. See 407 U.S. at 12–14 & n.14 (examining whether the forumselection clause was the product of fraud and overreaching at the time the contract 

 7 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the 

Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 8 of 12 
9

was formed). As assignees, the Kostelacs cannot shift the Bremen inquiry to 

themselves in relation to the insurance contract. To the extent that the Kostelacs 

advance arguments along these lines, they are misguided.

When examining Bremen’s first prong, whether a forum-selection clause is 

invalid due to overreaching or fraud, we first look to see if the clause was 

negotiated. See Liles v. Ginn-La West End, Ltd., 631 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir. 

2011) (employing a “reasonable-communicativeness” test where a forum-selection 

clause was non-negotiated). Because the Kostelacs were assignees to the Remos 

insurance contract, we do not review whether the Kostelacs had an opportunity to 

negotiate the forum-selection clause. Instead, we must determine whether the 

clause was negotiated at the time the contract was drafted between the original 

parties.

The Kostelacs have not shown that the terms of the forum-selection clause 

were not negotiated between Remos and Allianz Global. Moreover, the Kostelacs 

do not allege that the clause was the product of fraud or overreach. Bremen’s first 

prong therefore does not support non-enforcement of the forum-selection clause.

As to the second prong, the Kostelacs do not argue that it would be 

inconvenient or unfair to require Remos to bring suit in Germany. They do not 

contend that there were unforeseeable burdens at the time of contracting for Remos 

to bring suit in Germany or that any foreseeable burdens are so weighty that they 

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 9 of 12 
10

would deprive Remos of its day in court. See Rucker v. Oasis Legal Finance, 

L.L.C., 632 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that where the burden was 

foreseeable “a plaintiff must show that litigating in the contractual forum will be so 

gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be 

deprived of his day in court”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whatever 

burden the Kostelacs might bear in bringing the case in Germany is immaterial to 

our analysis of their position as Remos’s assignees under Bremen.

8

 Because the 

Kostelacs have not demonstrated that it would be inconvenient and unfair for 

Remos to litigate in Germany, the second prong does not render the forumselection clause unenforceable.

Under the third prong, a forum-selection clause will not be enforced if “the 

chosen law would deprive the plaintiff of a remedy.” Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1292. 

The insurance contract included a choice-of-law clause stating that “this contract 

and any attachments are subject to German law.” The Kostelacs have not 

contested the application of this clause. Whether this case is litigated in Germany 

or in Florida, the court will apply German law to the suit. Accordingly, “the 

remedy will be determined under the same set of rules no matter where this case is 

 8 The Kostelacs assert that they did not have a reasonable opportunity to review the 

insurance contract because it had not been translated from its original German into English until 

this litigation. This does not alter their status as assignees of Remos’s claims against Allianz 

Global, and it does not bear on Remos’s position regarding the enforcement of the forumselection clause. Absent fraud, coercion, or the like, we will not disrupt the terms of a contract to 

which the assignees freely agreed to be bound because they failed to read its terms. 

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 10 of 12 
11

heard.” Rucker, 632 F.3d at 1237. For this reason, the third prong does not render 

the forum-selection clause unenforceable.

Under the fourth prong, a forum-selection clause will not be enforced if it 

contravenes public policy. The Kostelacs raised no argument under this prong. 

Given that the Kostelacs have not made a “strong showing” under Bremen to the 

contrary, we conclude that the forum-selection clause is enforceable.9

B.

Finally, the Kostelacs claim that ambiguity in the forum-selection clause 

renders it inapplicable to their suit. They argue that, because the forum-selection 

clause applies only when “an insurable claim” occurs, Allianz Global cannot assert

there is an insurable claim for the purpose of the forum-selection clause while 

asserting that the claim is not covered. 

In Florida, as in this circuit, contractual language is ambiguous only if it is 

susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 

29 So. 3d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 2010); accord Citro Florida, Inc. v. Citrovale, S.A., 760 

F.2d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir. 1985). We reject the Kostelacs’ interpretation that the 

forum-selection clause is limited to only those situations where Allianz Global 

recognizes that the claim is covered by the policy. As virtually all litigation under 

 9 The Kostelacs also argue that the forum-selection clause is fundamentally unfair. “All 

forum-selection clauses are evaluated for fundamental fairness. . . . In the context of negotiated 

forum-selection clauses, this analysis is confined to application of the Bremen test.” Liles, 631 

F.3d at 1254 n.19.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 11 of 12 
12

insurance contracts turns on whether or not a claim is covered, the Kostelacs’ 

reading of the clause would render the contract self-defeating. See United States v. 

DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a reading of a 

contractual provision that would lead to absurd results); Javier v. Gulf Life Ins. 

Co., 66 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 1953) (“[A] construction leading to an absurd result 

should be avoided.”). We hold that the only reasonable reading of “an insurable 

claim” is a claim that may fall under the policy. Accordingly, the clause applies to 

this suit.

IV.

The Kostelacs have not made a sufficient showing to overcome the 

presumptively valid and enforceable forum-selection clause they inherited as 

assignees of Remos’s claim against Allianz Global. The Kostelacs “must honor 

their bargains” and seek redress in a German court. See Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1299.

(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of 

the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-13718 Date Filed: 04/17/2013 Page: 12 of 12