OFELIA PADIN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD J. TRAVIS, OWNER, HEATHER L. TRAVIS, DRIVER, AND GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
A plaintiff sued a foreign insurance corporation (Geico) and two individual defendants from St. Johns County for damages. The defendants sought to transfer venue from Broward County to St. Johns County under Florida's foreign corporation venue statute. The court reversed the transfer order, holding that defendants failed to present competent evidence that Geico had an agent or representative in St. Johns County.
The court reversed the transfer order, holding that defendants failed to meet their burden of proving Geico had an agent or representative in St. Johns County. The internet printout was hearsay and insufficient evidence; the defendants needed to present actual testimony and evidence of contractual agreements or relationships establishing agency status.
[1] A defendant seeking to change venue bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff's chosen venue is improper.
[2] A plaintiff's choice of venue will not be disturbed if it is one of the alternatives provided by statute.
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“To change venue, the defendant has the burden of showing that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper.”
Establishes the legal standard and allocation of burden in venue disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfelia Padin sued Richard J. Travis (owner), Heather L. Travis (driver), and Geico General Insurance Company. The Travises resided in St. Johns County…
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 Foreign Corporation Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the circuit court’s order transferring venue from Broward County to St. Johns County. A suit against a foreign corporation such as Geico, a defendant below, “shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” § 47.051, Fla. Stat. (2007). Geico’s co-defendants, residents of St. Johns County, sought to transfer venue, relying on section 47.051. See Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1957).
“To change venue, the defendant has the burden of showing that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper.” Pier Point Developers, LLC v. Whitelaw, 912 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The plaintiff has the prerogative “to select the venue and as long as that selection is one of the alternatives provided by statute, the plaintiffs selection will not be disturbed.” Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., Inc. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Here, the appellee defendants produced no competent evidence that Geico had “an agent or other representative” in St. John’s County; the printout of the internet search from Geico’s website was hearsay, listing only the names of some businesses, with their addresses and phone numbers.
This case is distinguishable from Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Schwendemann, 564 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In that case, defendant Piper Aircraft sought to change venue from Dade County to Indian River County. The plaintiffs introduced “testimony and evidence” of contractual agreements between Piper and two separate Dade County businesses, one a service center and the other a parts distributor. These contracts authorized the businesses to perform repairs, warranty, and maintenance work. Id. at 547. The trial court found the two businesses to be “representatives” of Piper in Dade County. Id. The third district affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence that the service center and parts distributor were “representatives” of Piper within the meaning of section 47.051. Id. at 547-48. The internet printout in this case falls far short of the “testimony and evidence” of contractual agreements that the third district found significant in Piper. Reversed and remanded.
STONE, GROSS, JJ., and ROSENBERG, ROBIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1957)
- Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Anneliese Schwendemann, 564 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Int'l Oceanographic Found. v. Stobs Bros. Constr. Co., 554 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., Inc. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Pier Point Developers, L.L.C. v. Whitelaw, 912 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)