Opinion ID: 1665333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Origination of Vulcan's Cause of Action

Text: A cause of action arises where the `defendant's wrongful act was done.' Ex parte Fields, 432 So.2d 1290 (Ala.1983) (quoting 92 C.J.S. Venue § 80, p. 776). In the present case, the trial court determined that the alleged wrongful acts ... are the insurance defendants' alleged failure to defend and indemnify Vulcan in regards to the perc-related litigation primarily in California and also in other jurisdictions outside of Alabama. We do not disagree with the trial court's conclusion that Vulcan's claims in this action arose out of the insurers' alleged failure to defend and indemnify Vulcan in the perc-related litigation. The determination of the situs of the claim  either inside or outside the State of Alabama  is a factual determination left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Ex parte Ford Motor Credit Co., 561 So.2d 244, 246 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). [1] Vulcan argues that the claim upon which the present action is based actually originated within Alabama. Vulcan points out that Alabama is where Vulcan purchased the insurance policies, where Vulcan paid the premiums on the insurance policies, where the agent or broker through whom the policies were purchased was located, and where Vulcan tendered its claims for coverage. Vulcan cites Ex parte Employers Insurance of Wausau, 590 So.2d 888 (Ala.1991), as support for its contention that Vulcan's claims in this case arose in Alabama. In Wausau, a lawsuit was pending in California regarding insurance coverage of claims against a corporation. Shareholders of the corporation brought an action in an Alabama state court seeking a declaration of coverage. This Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the insurance companies' motion for a dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. Wausau, however, is distinguishable from the present case because in Wausau the coverage claims of the corporation in California and of the corporation's shareholders in Alabama were independent and altogether separate from each other. 590 So.2d at 892-93. In the present case, the insurance-coverage action brought by Vulcan in Alabama involves nearly identical parties and covers issues identical to the First State action pending in California. The act giving rise to Vulcan's declaratory-judgment action against the various insurance companies is not the initiation of the contractual relationship between Vulcan and its insurers, which occurred in Alabama; instead, it is the alleged breach of that contractual relationship  the insurance companies' refusal to defend and indemnify Vulcan from claims asserting property damage allegedly caused [by perc]. There is no dispute that the various perc-related litigation arose outside Alabama, and that litigation is the very litigation over which Vulcan is bringing this action against the companies that insure it. Stickland v. Trion Group, Inc., 463 F.Supp.2d 921, 925 (E.D.Wis.2006) ([A] breach of contract occurs where the contract is to be performed.). In Ex parte Kia Motors America, Inc., 881 So.2d 396 (Ala.2003), Marilyn Jeffreys was killed in an automobile accident that occurred in Jackson County, Florida. Jeffreys's estate sued Kia Motors America, Inc., Emerald Auto Sales, Inc., and others (collectively Emerald), in Houston County, Alabama, asserting a product-liability claim, breach of warranty, and negligence. Emerald moved to dismiss the action on the basis of forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motion, and Emerald petitioned this Court for the writ of mandamus. We granted Emerald's petition, holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens applied in that case because the breach-of-warranty claim in the present action is a claim of `damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods,' the cause of action for which occurred in Florida. The claim, then accrued in Florida. Accordingly, we [find] it is a `claim [that] has arisen outside this state.' 881 So.2d at 401 (quoting Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430). Thus, under the law of Alabama, a breach-of-contract claim, like the claim between Vulcan and its insurance companies, arises where the contract was breached, rather than where the contract was entered into. [2] We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the defendants satisfied the first element of forum non conveniens as set forth in § 6-5-430, Ala.Code 1975.