FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PHYSICIANS' INSURANCE RECIPROCAL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Patient's Compensation Fund appealed a trial court's order transferring venue from Dade County to Duval County in a bad faith settlement refusal action against Florida Physicians' Insurance Reciprocal. The appellate court affirmed the transfer, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that venue transfer was warranted based on convenience of witnesses and interests of justice.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue. The record supported the transfer based on the convenience of key witnesses, which is the single most important consideration among the statutory factors. Since the action could have been brought in Duval County where FPIR resides, the transfer was proper.
[1] A trial court's decision to transfer venue under Florida Statutes section 47.122 is within its sound discretion and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of th…
[2] The convenience of key witnesses is the most important consideration among the statutory factors for transferring venue.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“For 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.”
Establishes the statutory standard under section 47.122, Florida Statutes for venue transfer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Fund brought an action against FPIR in Dade County, alleging that FPIR in bad faith refused to settle a claim against one of its insureds. FPIR mo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Convenience Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund (the Fund) brought an action against Florida Physicians’ Insurance Reciprocal (FPIR) in Dade County, alleging that FPIR, in bad faith, refused to settle a claim against one of its insureds. FPIR filed a motion to transfer venue to Duval County, contending that: 1) the action accrued in Duval County; and 2) Dade County was an inconvenient forum. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered an order transferring venue to Duval County. The Fund then brought this appeal to contest the order. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that:
[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 decision to transfer venue based upon this statute is “one within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a demonstration of an abuse of that discretion, the lower court’s determination will not be overturned on appeal.” Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (citations omitted); see also McMichael v. Harris, 127 Fla. 861, 174 So. 323 (1937); Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Spalding v. Von Zamft, 180 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to “the convenience of the parties” or “the interests of justice,” these being abstract concepts which must be weighed by the trial court according to the facts of each case, Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Furthermore, the record supports the trial court’s order for a change of venue based upon the convenience of the key witnesses, which has been held to be “the single most important consideration of the three statutory factors,” Hu, 426 So. 2d at 1279. Since the Fund’s action could have been brought in Duval County, where the defendant, FPIR, resides, see § 47.011, Fla.Stat. (1985), the trial court properly transferred venue of this case to that county.1 Accordingly, the order under review is
Affirmed.
. Finding that venue of this case was properly transferred based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens, we need not determine if the trial court correctly granted a change of venue based upon FPIR’s other asserted ground for transfer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Burger King Corp. v. Koeppel, 564 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…hoice of venue must show an abuse of this discretion in order to successfully challenge the court's determination. McMichael v. Harris, 127 Fla. 861, 174 So. 323 (Fla.1937); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Florida Physicians’ Ins. Reciprocal, 507 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hertz Corp. v. Rentz, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); see Braun v. Stafford, 529 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Torres v. Torres, 561 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…hat the court abused the discretion conferred by section 47.122 by transferring the modification proceeding under the facts of this case. There is no merit in this argument. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Florida Physicians’ Ins. Reciprocal, 507 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Spalding v. Von Zamft, 180 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Affirmed. . Section 47.122 provides: Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the in…
-
Hall v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 118 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…r potential witnesses. On this basis, it is apparent that, at a minimum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order below, as is required for reversal. See Fla. Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Fla. Physicians’ Ins. Reciprocal, 507 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“The decision to transfer venue ... is ‘one within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a demonstration of an abuse of discretion, the lower court’s determination will not be overturned on appeal.’ ”) (interna…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stephen C.S. HU v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Peterson v. O'Neill, 314 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Spalding v. VON Zamft, 180 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- McMichael v. Harris, 127 Fla. 861 (Fla. 1937)