Title: Ex Parte Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
Citation: 548 So. 2d 1029
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 1989

548 So. 2d 1029 (1989)
Ex parte AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO.
(In re Bebe R. WHITE v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO.)
88-652.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 21, 1989.
H.E. Nix, Jr. and Alex L. Holtsford, Jr. of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole &amp; Black, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Randall B. James of Beasley, Wilson, Allen, Mendelsohn &amp; Jemison, Montgomery, for respondent.
MADDOX, Justice.
By its petition for a writ of mandamus, defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company asks this Court to order the trial court to dismiss the present action on the grounds that the State of Florida is the more appropriate forum for the trial of the action.
The facts pertinent to our inquiry are basically undisputed.
*1030 On November 29, 1986, Bebe White allegedly received significant personal injuries and incurred property damage as a result of her automobile's being run off the road by an unidentified driver. White claims that she was forced to leave the roadway, and that upon doing so she collided with the porch of a house. The accident occurred in Crenshaw County, Alabama, while White was returning to her home in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. The accident was investigated by an Alabama State Trooper.
Respondent was treated at the scene by members of the Highland Home (Alabama) Rescue Squad. The only witness to the accident resides in Highland Home, Alabama.
Upon returning home, White was treated by physicians in DeFuniak Springs, Florida, and Ft. Walton Beach, Florida.
After the collision, White filed an uninsured motorist claim with her automobile insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (hereinafter "Auto-Owners"). White does not deny that her contract with Auto-Owners was entered into in the State of Florida, and she admits that her attempt to have Auto-Owners pay her claims was conducted through Auto-Owners' claims office in Pensacola, Florida.
White, nevertheless, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, on November 18, 1988, after Auto-Owners had failed and refused to pay the amount she claimed was due to her under the Auto-Owners' policy.
In its answer, Auto-Owners admitted that it is a foreign corporation doing business by agent in Montgomery County, Alabama, and also that it had issued to White a policy that provided for uninsured motorist coverage.
Auto-Owners claimed that nothing concerning the action occurred in Montgomery County, Alabama, and it therefore filed a motion requesting the trial court to dismiss White's action pursuant to Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1. White responded to the motion, and the trial court heard oral arguments on the motion. After considering the legal arguments of both parties, the trial court denied Auto-Owners' motion to dismiss.
This Court has previously set out the requirements for mandamus:
Ex parte Terry Lee Edgar, 543 So. 2d 682 (Ala.1989).
We first address petitioner's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction of the claim. Before discussing the possible application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, it must first be determined whether the Montgomery County Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Art. XII, § 232, Ala. Const. 1901, as amended by Amendment 473, provides as follows:
Alabama's venue statute, Code 1975, § 6-3-7, provides, in pertinent part, that "a domestic corporation may be sued in any county in which it does business by agent or was doing business by agent at the time the cause of action arose." See also, Ex parte Alabama Mobile Homes, Inc., 468 So. 2d 156 (Ala.1985).
Based on the foregoing reasons, it is readily apparent that the Montgomery County Circuit Court does have jurisdiction to hear the case. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to ascertain whether the petitioner has carried its burden of demonstrating that there is another forum to whose jurisdiction it is amenable and in which justice can be served at substantially less inconvenience and expense to all concerned parties.
We now discuss whether the trial court should have dismissed the action without prejudice under the provisions of Code 1975, § 6-5-430. As indicated earlier, White's claim is one for uninsured motorist insurance benefits. Thus, in order for White to prevail on her claim, it will be essential for her to prove that she was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist, that the uninsured motorist caused the accident, that the accident resulted in damages to the insured, and that the uninsured motorist was legally liable for those damages. Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety Co. v. Beggs, 525 So. 2d 1350 (Ala.1988).
White correctly notes that in order for her to prove that she is entitled to the uninsured motorist benefits, under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy, she must first show that she suffered injuries resulting from the negligent operation of an uninsured motor vehicle. She asserts that this will be established by her testimony, the testimony of the witness to the accident, the testimony of the rescue squad personnel called to the scene of the accident, and the testimony of law enforcement personnel called to investigate the accident. White further asserts that all of the aforementioned witnesses live in or around Highland Home, Alabama, and that they would be substantially inconvenienced if forced to travel to Florida to testify.
Auto-Owners, on the other hand, argues that all events relative to the case, with the exception of the accident itself, took place in Florida. Auto-Owners, in support of its motion, asserts that White lives in Florida, that its representatives who denied the insured's claim work in Florida, and that the doctors by whom White was examined and who would be called to testify all work in Florida. While admitting that it maintains an office in the city of Montgomery, which is in Montgomery County, Auto-Owners contends that the Montgomery office, or its personnel, have no connection whatsoever with this lawsuit. In short, Auto-Owners maintains that this case involves a breach of contract dispute between non-Alabama residents, over a contract executed in Florida and allegedly breached in Florida, and therefore that the trial court should have dismissed the action without prejudice. We disagree.
Our review of the trial court's denial of Auto-Owners' motion to dismiss necessitates discussion of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Code 1975, § 6-5-430, as amended effective June 11, 1987, provides as follows:
Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been followed in other jurisdictions for a number of years, Wedemann v. United States Trust Co. of New York, 258 N.Y. 315, 179 N.E. 712 (1932); Stewart v. Litchenberg, 148 La. 195, 86 So. 734 (1920); Blair, "The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law," 29 Colum.L.Rev. 1 (1929); Dainow, "The Inappropriate Forum," 29 Ill.L.Rev. 867 (1935), the doctrine is relatively new to Alabama law. The doctrine was not available in Alabama until the 1987 amendment to § 6-5-430; see Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 537 So. 2d 899 (Ala.1988); and Vandergriff v. Southern Ry., 537 So. 2d 904 (Ala.1988). Essentially, the doctrine allows a court, which has jurisdiction and which is located where venue is proper, to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction when, in the interest of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice and judicial economy, the case could be more appropriately tried in another forum. The prevailing question of whether a case should be entertained or dismissed "depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is in the sound discretion of the trial judge." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 84 at 251 (1971).
The United States Supreme Court's first authoritative statement on the doctrine of forum non conveniens provided:
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 1062 (1947). (Emphasis added, footnote omitted.) See also, Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S. Ct. 252, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1981).
The evidence presented here does not show that the relative inconveniences are so unbalanced that we should order the trial court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In short, "[w]e must reject the [petitioner's] contention as based on an insufficient showing of hardship. It has not been shown how the [petitioner's] parties and witnesses will be inconvenienced in coming to Alabama to litigate this matter, any more than the [respondent's parties and witnesses] would be inconvenienced in having to go to Florida." Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So. 2d 153 (Ala.1989).
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.
WRIT DENIED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.