LOVE'S WINDOW & DOOR INSTALLATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY, ETC., ET. AL., 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.
Love's Window & Door Installation appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to sever and transfer venue to Volusia County based on a forum selection clause in its subcontract. The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the complexity of ongoing litigation in Osceola County and the need for common witnesses constituted compelling reasons not to enforce the forum selection provision.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to transfer venue, holding that compelling reasons exist not to enforce the forum selection clause, including the risk of multiple lawsuits, the need for common witnesses to testify in both proceedings, and the likelihood of inconsistent results if the action were severed and transferred.
[1] A forum selection clause in a contract is generally mandatory.
[2] Exceptions to enforcing a mandatory forum selection clause exist when there are compelling reasons not to enforce the provision.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Compelling reasons not to enforce a forum selection clause include avoiding multiple lawsuits, minimizing judicial labor, reducing the expenses to the parties, and avoiding inconsistent results.”
Establishes the legal standard for exceptions to mandatory enforcement of forum selection clauses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLove's Window & Door Installation was a subcontractor hired by Dunn Corporation to install aluminum windows for the Artisan Club Condominium Community…
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 Third Party Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves complex litigation regarding a construction project known as Artisan Club Condominium Community (“the Association”) in Osceola County. Plaintiff below, the Association, filed its initial construction defect action in October 2009 against the projects’ developers and the general contractor, Core Construction Services, Southeast, Inc. Numerous third and fourth party complaints were subsequently filed in the matter. One of those third party actions involved the general contractor bringing suit against the Appel-lee, Dunn Corporation, for improper installation of all of the aluminum windows on the project. In turn, Dunn Corporation brought a fourth party action against Love’s Window and Door Installation, Inc., the Appellant, alleging that the Appellant improperly carried out its obligations regarding the window installation, as subcontracted by the Appellee.
As complex as the Osceola County litigation is, the issue presented on appeal in this case is not. Appellant, based on a provision in its contract with Appellee, moved to sever its action involving Appel-lee and transfer venue to Volusia County. Both parties agree that there is a forum selection clause in their contract and that such a provision is generally mandatory. This was the argument presented by Appellant to the trial judge handling the litigation. Appellee responded that there are exceptions to the mandatory transfer rule when there are compelling reasons not to enforce the provision.
Compelling reasons not to enforce a forum selection clause include avoiding multiple lawsuits, minimizing judicial labor, reducing the expenses to the parties, and avoiding inconsistent results. See Mason v. Homes by Whitaker, Inc., 971 So.2d 1029, 1029-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Girdley Constr. Co. v. Architectural Exteriors, Inc., 517 So.2d 137, 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (holding a forum selection provision should not be enforced when a transfer of venue would result in multiple suits and splitting causes of action).
The trial judge, based on decisions from this Court, denied Appellant’s motion. *1066Appellant conceded that some of the witnesses to its action would also have to testify in Osceola County. Further, the claim against James W. Love, individually, would have to remain in Osceola County. We find the facts of this case establish a compelling reason not to enforce the forum selection provision found in the parties’ contract.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, LAMBERT, JJ„ and HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. BAY Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Sika Corp., 338 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…ncreased judicial labor, increased expenses to all parties and could create inconsistent results. In this case, there are no crossclaims involved or complex litigation questions. See Love’s Window & Door Installation, Inc. v. Acousti Eng’g Co., 147 So. 3d 1064, 1065–66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (finding a compelling reason not to enforce a forum selection clause where the litigation involved numerous third and fourth party complaints). The sole cause of action against Sika is the breach of warranty claim t…
-
Am. Patriot Brands, Inc. v. Skip Jack APB Holding, LLC (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…2007) (internal quotations omitted); Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d at 440 n.4 (Fla. 1986). A court may decline to enforce a mandatory forum selection clause for “compelling reasons.” Love’s Window & Door Installation, Inc. v. Acousti 4 Eng’g Co., 147 So. 3d 1064, 1065–66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). In some circumstances, such reasons include “avoiding multiple lawsuits, minimizing judicial labor, reducing the expenses to the parties, and avoiding inconsistent results.” Id. at 1065; see also Am. Safety Cas. Ins…
Authorities Cited
- Girdley Constr. Co. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Architectural Exteriors, Inc., 517 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Mason v. Homes BY Whitaker, Inc., 971 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)