For the following reasons, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. In raising an objection to venue, the burden rests with the defendants to show that venue is improperly laid. Here, because the defendants have offered no evidence contradicting the factual allegations in the motion for judgment, we will accept those allegations as true for purposes of resolving the issue presented on appeal. Beginning in 1992, Volvo International began auctioning program and demonstrator vehicles to its dealers. It contracted with Flynn to deliver the vehicles to Danville.
Northland has a registered agent for service of process in Richmond.
While en route to Danville, Newsome was involved in a single vehicle accident in which three of the vehicles he was transporting were damaged. Newsome delivered the undamaged vehicles to Hairston and turned the damaged vehicles over to Northland for adjustment. Northland later sold two of the vehicles and has not paid any claim on the vehicles. One sale was made in Chesapeake, Virginia. In the alternative, the defendants asserted that, even if the provisions of the Carmack Amendment did not supersede state venue statutes, Pennsylvania was nonetheless a more convenient forum for the litigation.