Court Opinion

ID: 9959825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 18:04:10.734054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:55.479580
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D22-2275
                 LT Case No. 2022-15458-CODL
                 _____________________________

MRI ASSOCIATES OF BRANDON,
LLC a/a/o Julia Stuart,

    Appellant,

    v.

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Volusia County.
Rachel D. Myers, Judge.

Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for
Appellant.

Kristen L. Wenger, Drew Krieger, and Rebecca Morrison of
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

                         April 12, 2024

KILBANE, J.

     Appellant MRI Associates of Brandon, LLC, as assignee of
Julia Stuart (“MRI”), appeals the order of the Volusia County
Court granting Appellee GEICO General Insurance Company’s
(“GEICO”) motion to transfer venue to Hillsborough County under
section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2022), the forum non conveniens
statute. We reverse.

                               Facts

     MRI sued GEICO in Volusia County Court for amounts due
for services provided to Julia Stuart, a GEICO insured, stemming
from an automobile accident. GEICO filed a motion to transfer
venue to Hillsborough County as the more convenient forum.
GEICO submitted documents and an affidavit stating that Ms.
Stuart resided in Hillsborough County, the accident and MRI’s
services occurred in Hillsborough County, and potential witnesses
(including individuals involved in the accident, witnesses to the
accident, first responders, and MRI’s employees) were located
either in Hillsborough County or outside of Volusia County.

      MRI countered with an affidavit stating that GEICO had
made partial payment and the dispute centered solely on whether
GEICO applied the correct reimbursement formula in disallowing
the remaining balance of MRI’s claim. GEICO concedes that it
made the partial payment on MRI’s claim and does not assert that
it is disputing the validity of the claim itself.

                             Analysis

     Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, prescribes, “[f]or the
convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice,
any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court
of record in which it might have been brought.” The parties
acknowledge that venue is proper in both Volusia and
Hillsborough Counties.1 However, in applying section 47.122, a
plaintiff’s choice of venue is “presumptively correct,” and GEICO
had the burden of proof in establishing a basis for transfer under
section 47.122. See At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota Ins. Co.,
345 So. 3d 392, 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (first citing Eggers v.

    1   GEICO is a foreign corporation and has “agents or
representatives” in both counties. Thus, venue is proper in either
county under section 47.051.

                                  2
Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); and then citing
Vero v. Vero, 659 So. 2d 1348, 1349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)).

     Where venue is proper in more than one county, “a plaintiff’s
choice of venue will not be set aside without a showing of
substantial inconvenience to the parties or witnesses, or that
justice requires transfer.” AHG Tax Credit Fund XVIII, LLC v.
Blitchton Station, LLC, 200 So. 3d 117, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
(citing Resor v. Welling, 44 So. 3d 656, 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)).
Decisions granting or denying such transfer are reviewed for abuse
of discretion. Id. (citing McDaniel Rsrv. Realty Holdings, LLC v.
B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So. 3d 504, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

     A party seeking a change of venue under section 47.122 must
“submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light
on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
the interest of justice.” At Home Auto Glass, 345 So. 3d at 394
(quoting Hall v. Animals.com, L.L.C., 171 So. 3d 216, 218 (Fla.
5th DCA 2015)). “[T]he court must know who the witnesses are
and the significance of their testimony” in order to determine
whether such testimony is material. Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d
1275, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

    Here, GEICO’s affiant listed categories of witnesses
purportedly located either in Hillsborough County or outside of
Volusia County. Yet, GEICO failed to explain the significance or
materiality of those witnesses’ testimony to a dispute that, as
GEICO implicitly concedes, is limited to merely determining
whether GEICO correctly applied the reimbursement rate in
paying MRI’s claim. GEICO is not challenging the claim itself.
Hence, we can perceive no significance or materiality of testimony
that might be elicited from participants in the accident, witnesses
to the accident, first responders, or MRI employees who
administered medical services to Ms. Stuart, which encompasses
each and every potential witness listed by GEICO.2

    2 On appeal, GEICO does not offer any independent argument

that “the interest of justice” requires transfer; instead, it merely
includes that phrase in asserting its argument that transfer is
warranted “for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.”

                                 3
                          Conclusion

    Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in granting
GEICO’s motion to transfer. The order transferring venue is
reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

    REVERSED and REMANDED

HARRIS, J., concurs.
MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                4
                                               Case No. 5D22-2275
                                    Lt. Case No. 2022-15458-CODL

MAKAR, J., dissenting.

     Affirmance under the abuse of discretion standard is
warranted in this case, which was transferred from Volusia
County to Hillsborough County where the auto accident occurred,
where the insured motorist received medical treatment, and where
all material witnesses resided. It is unclear whether only a legal
issue and no factual issues will be litigated in the matter; no
answer had been filed and discovery was just beginning. The
epicenter of litigation appears more likely to be in Hillsborough
County, making transfer beneficial and convenient for (almost) all
involved. The insurer’s principal place of business is in Volusia
County, which makes initial venue proper, but it does not foreclose
transfer when the filing of these types of lawsuits in Volusia
County appears to be predominantly for the convenience of the
insurer’s legal counsel, despite all other evidence and witnesses
being in Hillsborough County.

                                5