Preziosi West/East Orlando Chiropractic Clinic, LLC a/a/o Jayne Bemba Kaye v. First Acceptance In. Co., County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit Miami-Dade County, Case No. 2022-005732-SP-24, Section MB-01, Jun. 15, 2023

The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff, Preziosi West/East Orlando Chiropractic Clinic, LLC a/a/o Jayne Bemba, against First Acceptance Insurance Company in relation to an alleged breach of contract arising out of an alleged failure to pay PIP benefits. In its response to the complaint, First Acceptance sought to challenge the plaintiff’s selection of Miami-Dade County as a proper venue for the action. In support of the motion, First Acceptance filed an affidavit establishing that it is a foreign corporation that did not have an agent or representative in Miami-Dade County but did have a representative in Hillsborough County.

The court also noted that the evidence showed that Preziosi was located in Orange County, the treatment at issue was rendered in Orange County, Preziosi’s billing address is in Orange County, and the alleged payment due to Preziosi was to be remitted in Orange County. The court also noted that Hayne Bemba was a resident of Orange County. In deciding whether venue was proper, the court looked to Fla. Stat. 47.051, which provides: “Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” The court also cited Gino Vitiello, M.D., P.A. v. Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., 123 So.3d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2206b], in which it was ruled that, when a party established improper venue by filing an affidavit, the burden shifts to the opposing party to rebut the affidavit with sworn evidence. In the instant suit, the court found that the defendant had agents in Hillsborough County and the cause of action accrued in Orange County, therefore, venue would be proper in either jurisdiction.

The significance of this decision is that carriers that do not conduct business or have representative/agents in the county in which they are being sued may seek a transfer, assuming the cause of action did not also accrue in said county. However, the caveat to this is that, if an insurer does have business ties or representatives/agents in a county that they are being sued in, they will likely be unable to have a court transfer the suit to another jurisdiction.