Court Opinion

ID: 9909479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:04:10.39809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:27.889063
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                      Opinion filed December 13, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1333
                        Lower Tribunal No. 22-4145
                           ________________

                      Wello and Mom, LLC, etc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

      Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto
Diaz, Judge.

       Martinez Morales, LLC, and Raul Morales, Angela Bousalis and
Cristina Salem, for appellant.

     The Goldman Maritime Law Group, Steven E. Goldman and
Jacqueline L. Goldman (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
      Wello and Mom, LLC (“Wello”) appeals an order granting Clear Spring

Property and Casualty Company’s (“Clear Spring”) motion to dismiss the

amended complaint. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

Finding no error in the trial court’s decision to enforce the plain and

unambiguous language of the forum selection clause, we affirm.

      This case arises out of a marine insurance policy issued by Clear

Spring to Wello. After Wello’s vessel partially sank, it submitted a claim for

damages which Clear Spring allegedly denied due to—among other things—

Wello’s failure to disclose material facts in the insurance application

concerning its prior loss history. In December 2021, Clear Spring filed a

declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida, invoking the court’s admiralty jurisdiction. 1 In

March 2022, Wello sued Clear Spring in state court for denying its claim for

damages sustained as a result of the partial sinking. Clear Spring filed a

motion to dismiss arguing the state court action was filed in contravention of

the policy’s forum selection clause, 2 which requires that suits arising under

1
  At the time this appeal was being litigated, Wello had already filed an
answer, raised counterclaims and filed a motion for summary judgment in
the federal action.
2
  The forum selection clause at issue provides: “It is also hereby agreed that
any dispute arising hereunder shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Federal courts of the United States of America, in particular, the Federal

                                      2
the policy be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted Clear Spring’s motion and

dismissed Wello’s amended complaint. This appeal followed.

     On appeal, Wello contends the trial court erred in dismissing the

amended complaint because the policy’s forum selection clause should be

deemed unenforceable as it was not negotiated and deprived Wello of the

right to a jury trial. Contrary to Wello’s arguments, a forum selection clause

which is not the subject of negotiations often retains its enforceability. See

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593 (1991) (declining to

adopt the view that a non-negotiated forum selection clause is “never

enforceable simply because it is not the subject of bargaining”). Further,

there is a well-entrenched rule of federal admiralty law favoring the

enforcement of forum selection clauses in maritime contracts, including

policies of marine insurance. See M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407

U.S. 1, 10 (1972) (“[Forum selection] clauses are prima facie valid and

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

‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.”) (footnote omitted); Shute, 499

U.S. at 585 (applying the rule set forth in The Bremen and enforcing a forum

District court within which you the Assured resides or the Federal District
court within which your insurance agent resides.”

                                      3
selection clause); Turner v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 9 F.4th 1341, 1346 (11th

Cir. 2021) (applying the rule set forth in The Bremen and enforcing a forum

selection clause); Marco Forwarding Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 430 F.

Supp. 2d 1289, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (applying the rule set forth in The

Bremen and enforcing a forum selection clause). This presumption of validity

applies notwithstanding Wello’s assertion that it was deprived of the right to

a jury trial. See Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So. 3d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA

2008) (applying federal maritime law and enforcing a forum selection clause

despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the clause stripped them of their state

constitutional right to a jury trial), aff’d by an equally divided court en banc,

22 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

      We find no error in the trial court’s decision that Wello has not satisfied

the heavy burden under The Bremen. 407 U.S. at 10. Wello has not shown

that application of the forum selection clause at issue is unreasonable under

the circumstances and so gravely difficult and inconvenient as to deprive

Wello of its day in court.

      Affirmed.

                                       4