NIKOLAY MITEV
v.
CAYMAN FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
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.
Forum selection clauses in contracts are presumptively valid, and a party seeking to avoid such a clause bears the burden of proving that trial in the designated forum would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient as to deprive them of their day in court.
[1] Forum selection clauses in contracts are presumptively valid under Florida law, and a party seeking to avoid enforcement of such a clause bears the burden of establishing…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid and it is the burden of the party seeking to avoid that contractual agreement to establish 'that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.'”
The court articulated the standard for challenging a forum selection clause on grounds of inconvenience.
Nikolay Mitev brought an action against Cayman First Insurance Company, Ltd. The parties' contract contained a forum selection clause designating a sp…
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 Forum Selection Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Steiner Transocean Ltd. v. Efremova, 109 So. 3d 871, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizing that a trial court is permitted to consider evidence outside the four corners of the complaint where the motion to dismiss is based on a contractual forum selection clause); see also Weisser v. PNC Bank, N.A., 967 So. 2d 327, 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[I]n Florida, contracting parties are permitted to agree that any litigation stemming from their contract must be heard in a specific forum.”); Celistics, LLC v. Gonzalez, 22 So. 3d 824, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (determining that the subject forum selection clause was mandatory rather than permissive where it included words of exclusivity such as “shall,” “must,” or “exclusively”);
Steiner, 109 So. 3d at 873 (“[F]orum selection clauses are presumptively valid and it is the burden of the party seeking to avoid that contractual agreement to establish ‘that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.’”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Celistics, LLC v. Gonzalez, 22 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Weisser v. PNC Bank, N.A., 967 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Steiner Transocean Ltd. v. Milena Efremova, 109 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)