WELLO AND MOM, LLC, ETC.

v.

CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ETC.

1 At the time this appeal was being litigated, Wello had already filed an answer, raised counterclaims and filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal action. 2 The forum selection clause at issue provides: “It is also hereby agreed that any dispute arising hereunder shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal courts of the United States of America, in particular, the Federal the policy be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Clear Spring’s motion and dismissed Wello’s amended complaint. This appeal followed. On appeal, Wello contends the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint because the policy’s forum selection clause should be deemed unenforceable as it was not negotiated and deprived Wello of the right to a jury trial. Contrary to Wello’s arguments, a forum selection clause which is not the subject of negotiations often retains its enforceability. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593 (1991) (declining to adopt the view that a non-negotiated forum selection clause is “never enforceable simply because it is not the subject of bargaining”). Further, there is a well-entrenched rule of federal admiralty law favoring the enforcement of forum selection clauses in maritime contracts, including policies of marine insurance. See M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972) (“[Forum selection] clauses are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.”) (footnote omitted); Shute, 499 U.S. at 585 (applying the rule set forth in The Bremen and enforcing a forum District court within which you the Assured resides or the Federal District court within which your insurance agent resides.” selection clause); Turner v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 9 F. 4th 1341, 1346 (11th Cir. 2021) (applying the rule set forth in The Bremen and enforcing a forum selection clause); Marco Forwarding Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 430 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (applying the rule set forth in The Bremen and enforcing a forum selection clause). This presumption of validity applies notwithstanding Wello’s assertion that it was deprived of the right to a jury trial. See Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So. 3d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (applying federal maritime law and enforcing a forum selection clause despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the clause stripped them of their state constitutional right to a jury trial), aff’d by an equally divided court en banc, 22 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). We find no error in the trial court’s decision that Wello has not satisfied the heavy burden under The Bremen. 407 U.S. at 10. Wello has not shown that application of the forum selection clause at issue is unreasonable under the circumstances and so gravely difficult and inconvenient as to deprive Wello of its day in court. Affirmed.