Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 28, 2016 by Tom

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Venue — Forum selection clause — Trial court erred in denying defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss claim for uninsured motorist benefits based on improper venue

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2413a
Top of Form

Insurance
— Uninsured motorist — Venue — Forum selection clause — Trial court erred
in denying defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss claim for uninsured motorist
benefits based on improper venue where endorsement to policy contained
mandatory forum selection clause providing that any lawsuits related to
coverage shall be brought, heard, and decided in county of insured address
shown on policy declarations, which was an address in Pennsylvania — Forum
selection clause contained in endorsement prevailed over general venue
provisions in policy — To the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the
body of the policy, the endorsement controls

ALLSTATE
FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. JOSEPH HRADECKY, ET AL.,
Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D16-999. L.T. Case No. 15-294 M. Opinion
filed October 26, 2016. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court
for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. Counsel: Walton Lantaff Schroeder &
Carson LLP and John P. Joy and Sara M. Sandler (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellant. Keller, Keller & Caracuzzo, P.A. and David M. Lores (West Palm
Beach); Purdy, Jolly, Giuffreda & Barranco, P.A. (Fort Lauderdale) and
Summer M. Barranco (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

(Before
SHEPHERD, LAGOA, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.)

(LAGOA,
J.) Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”) seeks review of
the trial court’s order denying Allstate’s motion to dismiss Count II of
Plaintiff, Joseph Hradecky’s (“Hradecky”), complaint based on improper venue.1 Because the plain and unambiguous
language of the Endorsement contains a mandatory forum selection clause for
bringing any suit for UM benefits in Pennsylvania, we reverse the trial court’s
order and remand.

I. FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Allstate
issued a personal automobile policy to Hradecky (the “Policy”). The policy
period ran from November 15, 2014 until May 15, 2015, and provided for both
Uninsured Motorists (“UM”) and Underinsured Motorists (“UIM”) coverage. On
November 19, 2014, Hradecky received an Amended Policy Endorsement (the
“Endorsement”). Of relevance to this appeal, the address for Hradecky listed on
the Policy Declarations page was 177 McKenzie Road, Clinton, Pennsylvania.

On
December 3, 2014, Hradecky’s motor vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven
by an officer of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office. At the time of the
accident, Hradecky’s vehicle was covered by the Policy and its Endorsement.

Hradecky
subsequently filed suit alleging two counts: Count I for Negligence against
Rick Ramsay, as Sheriff of Monroe County, Florida; and Count II for Negligence
against Allstate.2

Allstate
filed a Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, arguing
that dismissal was required based on the following mandatory forum selection
clause contained in the Endorsement titled “Pennsylvania Auto Amendatory
Endorsement”:

The following endorsement
changes your policy. Please read this document carefully and keep it with your
policy.

. . . .

II. In Part 3, Uninsured
Motorists Insurance
and Underinsured Motorists Insurance, the
following changes are made:

. . . .

E. In Uninsured Motorists
Insurance,
the If We Cannot Agree provision is replaced by the
following:

If We Cannot Agree

If the insured person and we
do not agree on that person’s right to receive damages or on the amount,
then upon mutual consent, the disagreement will be settled by arbitration.
Unless you and we agree otherwise, arbitration will take place in
the county in which your address shown on the Policy Declarations is
located. If the insured person and we do not agree to arbitrate, then
the disagreement will be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction. Any and
all lawsuits related in any way to this coverage shall be brought, heard, and
decided in the county in which your address shown on the Policy
Declarations is located.

(emphasis
in original).

In
its Motion, Allstate asserted that Monroe County, Florida was an improper venue
for Hradecky’s UM claim and that, based on Hradecky’s address listed on his
Policy Declarations page, the Endorsement’s forum selection clause required
Hradecky to bring suit in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

In
response at the hearing, Hradecky argued that “it would be judicially
uneconomical” to litigate his UM claim in Pennsylvania while continuing to
litigate his negligence claim against the sheriff’s office in Florida. Hradecky
further argued that because the Endorsement conflicted with the venue clause in
the Policy, the provision which provided greater coverage prevailed.

At
the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, the trial court agreed with Hradecky and
specifically ruled “that in order for the endorsement to change the policy the
way you [Allstate’s counsel] are suggesting, it would have had to have
referenced the general provision, as well. And it did not do that. And so it
leaves the general provision in the policy intact, and it provides language
which conflicts with that.” In its subsequent written order, the trial court
denied the motion “for the reasons stated in the record.”

Allstate
filed its Motion for Reconsideration of Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss Count II
of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which the trial court denied without hearing. This
appeal ensued.

II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

We
review de novo a trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss based on the
interpretation of contractual forum selection clause. See Espresso
Disposition Corp. 1 v. Santana Sales & Mktg. Grp., Inc.
, 105 So. 3d
592, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Menendez
, 24 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Because the
interpretation of an insurance contract presents a question of law, this
Court’s standard of review is de novo.”), quashed on other grounds, 70
So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2011).

III.
ANALYSIS

A. ENDORSEMENTS
PREVAIL OVER GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY

Under
Florida law, an insurance policy is treated like a contract, and therefore
ordinary contract principles govern the interpretation and construction of such
policy. See Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v.
Pitu, Inc.
, 95 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In denying Allstate’s Motion
to Dismiss, the trial court specifically found that the general venue
provisions of the Policy prevailed over the forum selection clause contained in
the Endorsement. We find that the trial court erred in its finding.

The
law in Florida is clear that to the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with
the body of the policy, the endorsement controls. See Family Care
Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch.
, 875 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
(“Even if there were an ambiguity between the endorsement and the body of the
policy, the endorsement, which is clear, controls.”); Fireman’s Fund Ins.
Co. v. Levine & Partners, P.A.
, 848 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA
2003) (finding that “the terms of an endorsement such as the one sued upon
control over anything purportedly to the contrary in any other insuring
agreement”); Steuart Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s
London
, 696 So. 2d 376, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (finding that “to the
extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the
endorsement controls”).

Here,
the Endorsement modifies and amends the insurance contract with respect to
forum selection. Specifically, the Endorsement states that “[a]ny and all
lawsuits related in any way to this coverage shall be brought, heard, and
decided in the county in which your address shown on the Policy
Declarations is located.” (emphasis in original). Moreover, “[e]ven if there
were an ambiguity between the endorsement and the body of the policy, the
endorsement, which is clear, controls.” Family Care Ctr., 875 So. 2d at
752. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in finding that the
Policy’s endorsement language did not control.

B. MANDATORY
VS. PERMISSIVE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES

Our
analysis, however, does not end with the finding that the Endorsement’s language
controls, as we must consider whether the Endorsement’s forum selection clause
is mandatory or permissive. Whether a forum selection clause is mandatory or
permissive depends on language indicating exclusivity. See Sonus-USA,
Inc. v. Thomas W. Lyons, Inc.
, 966 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). If
the forum selection clause states that any litigation must or shall be
initiated in a specified forum, the clause is mandatory. Absent such language,
the clause is permissive. Id.

The
Endorsement’s forum selection clause states: “Any and all lawsuits related in
any way to this coverage shall be brought, heard, and decided in the county in
which your address shown on the Policy Declarations is located.”
(emphasis in original). Because the clause at issue specifically provides that
litigation “shall be brought, heard, and decided” in a specified forum (in this
case, the county for the address shown on Hradecky’s Policy Declarations page),
we find that the clause is mandatory. See Golden Palm Hosp. Inc. v.
Stearns Bank Nat’l Ass’n
, 874 So. 2d 1231, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
(finding that use of the word “shall” in the documents is “indicative of a
mandatory provision rather than one that is permissive”).

Absent
a showing that a mandatory forum selection clause is unreasonable or unjust, a
trial court must enforce the clause. See Manrique v. Fabbri, 493
So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 1986); see also Farmers Group, Inc. v. Madio
& Co., Inc.
, 869 So. 2d 581, 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

It
is not enough to show that litigation in the forum would result in additional
expense or inconvenience. Instead, a party challenging a mandatory forum
selection clause as unreasonable or unjust must establish that trial of this
case outside of Florida would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he
will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court. See Manrique,
493 So. 2d at 440 n.4; see also Farmers, 869 So. 2d at 583.

Here,
the trial court made no finding that the Endorsement’s mandatory forum
selection clause was unreasonable or unjust. Nor could it have made such a
finding, as Hradecky neither argued below that the Endorsement’s clause was
unreasonable or unjust, nor presented any evidence to that effect. Instead,
Hradecky argued below that “it would be judicially uneconomical” to have him
litigate his UM claim in Pennsylvania while litigating his negligence claim
against the Sherriff’s office in Florida.

Absent
findings or record evidence establishing unreasonableness or unjustness of the
forum selection clause, we cannot find that the clause at issue is invalid. See
Taurus Stornoway Invs., LLC v. Kerley, 38 So. 3d 840, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA
2010) (finding forum selection clause valid absent any argument or record
evidence establishing an unreasonable or unjust result).

III.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly,
for the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Allstate’s
Motion to Dismiss Count II based on improper venue and we remand for entry of
an order of dismissal.

Reversed
and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

__________________

1Count
II is the only claim alleged against Allstate.

2Although
Hradecky styled Count II of the Amended Complaint as a negligence claim, a
review of the allegations shows that the claim is one for failure to pay
contractual UM benefits under the Policy, i.e., a claim for breach of contract.
Count II of the Amended Complaint asserts that “Hradecky had in effect [at the
time] an uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance policy with Defendant
[Allstate] which would inure to the benefit of the Plaintiff Joseph Hradecky,
in that, Defendant, Rick Ramsay, as Sheriff of Monroe County, Florida, is
uninsured.”Bottom of Form

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982