INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
JETSTAR DEVELOPMENT, INC., 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.
Insurance Company of North America (INA), as surety for Gulf Constructors, sought to transfer a venue from Palm Beach County to Sarasota County based on a contractual venue agreement between Gulf and Jetstar Development. The court held that the venue provision in the subcontract was enforceable against Jetstar and that INA, as an intended third-party beneficiary (the surety), could enforce it.
The court held that the contractual venue agreement is valid and enforceable for the benefit of the surety, that the surety is an intended third-party beneficiary of the venue provision because the contract expressly extended its application to sureties, and that Florida statutory bonding provisions do not prohibit enforcement of the venue agreement because the bond itself contained no restriction on venue.
[1] Parties to a contract may agree as to venue, and such agreements are valid and enforceable.
[2] A venue provision in a subcontract that applies to a party and its surety is enforceable by the surety.
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“It is well settled that parties to a contract may agree as to venue and that such agreements are valid and enforceable.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that contractual venue agreements are enforceable between contracting parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJetstar Development entered into a subcontract with Gulf Constructors for a construction project in Palm Beach County. The subcontract contained a ven…
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 Motion To Transfer Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Insurance Company of North America (INA) appeals from an order denying its motion to transfer venue.
Appellee Jetstar Development, Inc. (Jets-tar) entered into a sub-contract with Gulf Constructors, Inc. (Gulf) to supply labor and materials for the construction of a project located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contract between Jetstar and Gulf contained a provision concerning venue:
In the event of suit by the Contractor or its surety against the Sub-contractor or its surety or those with whom he deals on behalf of this agreement, or suit by the Sub-contractor or its surety or those with whom he deals on behalf of this agreement, against the Contractor or its surety, then the venue of such suit shall be in Sarasota County, Florida, and the Sub-contractor hereby waives for itself, its surety or those with whom he deals on behalf of this agreement whatever rights it may have in the selection of venue.
Jetstar filed suit in Palm Beach County against INA and alleged that Gulf breached the subcontract by failing to pay sums due and owing under the contract. Jetstar sued INA as surety for Gulf under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes (1985). INA moved to transfer venue to Sarasota County based upon the venue provision in the contract between Jetstar and Gulf. Jetstar argued that section 713.23(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1985) controlled, hence venue was properly laid in Palm Beach County.
INA contends that the trial court erred when it denied its motion to transfer venue to Sarasota County. We agree and reverse.
Appellee argues that it sued INA as a surety pursuant to section 713.23, Florida Statutes and that since section 713.23(l)(g) expressly provides that “no bond shall contain any provisions restricting the classes of persons protected thereby or the venue of any proceeding” the general provisions of Chapter 47, Florida Statutes (1985) control venue in this case. Jetstar also argues that the contractual provision for venue in Sarasota County does not apply because it has not sued for breach of contract and that INA cannot claim the benefits of the provision for venue as a third party beneficiary to the contract.
Jetstar misplaces its reliance on section 713.23. The bond does not contain any provision restricting venue. Jetstar expressly agreed that in the event of an action against Gulf or its surety, that venue would be in Sarasota County. It is well settled that parties to a contract may agree as to venue and that such agreements are valid and enforceable. See Business Aide Computers, Inc. v. Central Florida Mack Trucks, Inc., 432 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Honea v. Walker Chemical & Exterminating Company, 393 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) and Deeb, Inc. v. Board of Public Instruction, 196 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
We find no support in Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) for appellee’s argument that INA was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. In Publix Super Markets, Inc., neither the contract nor anything in the record indicated that the contract was intended to benefit anyone other than the parties themselves. Id. at 488. Here the contract expressly provided that the venue provision applied to the parties and to their sureties.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred when it failed to enforce the parties’ contractual agreement as to venue for the benefit of Gulf’s surety. We reverse the order denying INA’s motion to transfer venue and remand this cause for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlson-Southeast Corp. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…r any other matter affecting said security. (Emphasis supplied.) [*1072] It is well settled that parties to a contract may agree as to venue and that such agreements will be enforced, Insurance Company of North America v, Jets-tar Development, Inc., 515 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), unless the action concerns an in rem proceeding, Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), or when it appears that multiple suits will be filed and enforcement of a venue prov…
-
Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. Roberts Plumbing Contractors, Inc., 800 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…n-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“It is well settled that parties to a contract may agree as to venue and that such agreement will be enforced.”) quoting Insurance Co. of North America v. Jetstar Dev., Inc., 515 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). There is no contention that the venue provision in the instant case was somehow unreasonable or unjust or that it was procured by fraud or overreaching. Instead, Roberts Plumbing contends, as it did below, that pursuant to…
-
Am. Ins. Co. v. Joyner Elec., Inc., 618 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ade in Lake County. American, relying upon [*800] these provisions and upon Deeb, Inc. v. Board of Public Instruction of Columbia County, Florida, 196 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), and Insurance Company of North America v. Jetstar Development, Inc., 515 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), argues that the subcontract provisions require an action against the bonding company to be brought only in Lake County. Article 14.2 is obviously a specific venue provision. Article 5.1 is a provision for place of payment. Ameri…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Pub. Safety Dep't & CNA Ins. Cos. v. Adams, 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Bus. Aide Computers, Inc. v. Cent. Fla. Mack Trucks, Inc., 432 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Deeb v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Columbia Cnty., 196 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Honea v. Walker Chem. & Exterminating Co., Inc., 393 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Scaglione v. Best, 196 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)