TUTTLE'S DESIGN-BUILD, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA FANCY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 court held that forum selection clauses in payment bonds are prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown to be unreasonable.
Florida Fancy sued Tuttle's and Preferred in Manatee County on a payment bond for materials delivered to a project in Palm Beach County. The bond cont…
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 Claim On Payment Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Tuttle’s Design-Build, Inc. (Tuttle’s) and Preferred National Insurance Company (Preferred) argue the trial court erred in denying their motions to dismiss the complaint of Florida Fancy, Inc. (Florida Fancy) for improper venue. We agree.
Florida Fancy delivered material to Tuttle’s, a landscaping subcontractor, for use in a public construction project located in Palm Beach County. In its complaint filed in Manatee County, Florida Fancy asserted a claim against a payment bond issued by Preferred for Tuttle’s pursuant to section 255.05, Florida Statute (1991). Preferred and Tuttle’s each filed motions to dismiss the complaint for improper venue on the basis that the language of the bond specifically restricted venue to the county in which the project was located. The trial court denied these motions.
Tuttle’s and Preferred contend Florida Fancy, as a third party beneficiary under the payment bond, is bound by the forum selection provision contained in the bond. Forum selection clauses, such as the one under consideration here, are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437 (Fla.1986).
We reverse the order denying change of venue and remand allowing the trial court to determine whether circumstances exist which would cause enforcement of the forum selection clause to be unreasonable. Without such a finding, the forum selection clause is valid and enforceable.
Reversed and Remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Advantage CAR Rental & Sales, 656 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972); Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437 (Fla.1986); Tuttle’s Design Build, Inc. v. Florida Fancy, Inc., 604 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Here the parties selected New York as their forum for settling disputes under the lease, unless otherwise expressly waived by them. In paragraph 20, the parties expressly agreed that one of Advantage’s remedies in the event of de…
-
Golden Palm Hospitality, Inc. v. Stearns Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 874 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…sonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.’ ") (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972)); Tuttle’s Design-Build, Inc. v. Florida Fancy, Inc., 604 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that forum selection clauses are "prima facie valid”).…
-
Am. Online, Inc. v. Hampton G. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…he legitimate expectations of contracting parties.” Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d at 440; see Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Advantage Car Rental and Sales, Inc., 656 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Tuttle’s Design-Build, Inc. v. Florida Fancy, Inc., 604 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The only exception to this general rale is narrowly drawn where there is a showing that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust; the exception is not triggered by mere inconvenience or additional expense. Manrique v. Fabbri,…
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
- Manrique v. Giorgio Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1986)