Preview
Filing# 176546221 E-Filed 06/3 0/2023 01:36:14 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE-23-008049
OMAR SANTIAGO BETANCOURT,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CAROLINA BANCHI HERNANDEZ AND
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
i
DEFENDANT, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S,
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE yOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS
Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO"), pursuant to section 47.122,
Florida Statutes,and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060, moves to transfer venue forfbrum non
conveniens from Broward County, Florida,to Hillsborough County, Florida and states as follows:
1. This case arises from an accident that occurred on or about October 8, 2021, in
HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Compl. 17 11-12.
2. Omar Betancourt, a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida (Compl. 7
Plaintiff,
2),allegeshe was injuredin an automobile crash that was caused by and uninsured/underinsured
motorist,Defendant Carolina Banchi Hernandez ("Defendant Banchi Hernandez"). Compl. 'Ilf
11-
15,20.
3 In the Corrected First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"),Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages for injuriesallegedlysustained in the October 8, 2021 accident and, specifically,
sues GEICO to recover certain uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") benefits pursuant to a
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 06/30/2023 01:36:14 PM.****
policy of automobile insurance issued to Carmelo Sanchezl,policynumber XXXXXX9929 (the
"Policy").Compl. f 6-8, 19-23.
4. Plaintiff asserts the following four (4) causes of action:
Count I - Negligence Claim againstDefendant Banchi Hernandez
Count I - DeclaratoryRelief Against Defendant GEICO
Count II - Fraudulent MisrepresentationClaim Against Defendant GEICO
Count III - Bad Faith Claim Against Defendant GEICO
5. With respect a resident of Hillsborough County,
to the subjectaccident,Plaintiff,
Florida,allegesthat Defendant Banchi Hernandez, a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida
caused the subjectaccident on October 8, 2021, in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Compl. 1172-3,
11-12. Further,the subjectpolicywas issued to Carmelo Sanchez in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Ex. A to Compl.
6. For the following reasons, GEICO respectfullyrequests this Court transfer this
action to Hillsborough County, Florida,on the basis offbrum non conveniens.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Section 47.122, Florida Statutes,provides that "[florthe convenience of the partiesor
any court ofrecord may transfer any civil action to any other
witnesses or in the interests ofjustice,
court of record in which it might have been brought."§ 47.122, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to this statute,
a defendant may show that "either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requireschange
for the convenience of the partiesor witnesses." Cardelles v. Catholic Health Servs., Inc., 14 So.
3d 1025, 1027 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (quotingEggers v.
Eggers,776 So.2d 1096, 1098 (Fla.5th
DCA 2001)). Although a party moving to transfer an action for convenience must generally
Although Plaintiff allegesthe Policy was issued to him, the Policy attached to Plaintiffs Complaint shows that the
1
Policy was issued to Carmelo Sanchez, not Plaintiff. Compl. Ex. A.
2
"submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary lighton the issue of the convenience
of the partiesand witnesses... [t]heonly exceptionwould be where the complaint itself shows on
its face that a forum non conveniens transfer is warranted." Id. (quoting first Wynn Drywall, Inc.
v. Aequicap Program Adm'rs, Inc., 953 So.2d 28, 30 (Fla.4th DCA 2007) and then Ground
Improvement Techniques,Inc. v. Merchs. Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla.5th DCA
1998)).
"Florida courts have consistently
held that it is error to deny a transfer of venue where a
vehicular accident occurs in a Florida county other than the forum county and the witnesses are
located outside of the forum county and many or most of the witnesses are located in the county
in which the accident occurred." Morrill v.
Lytle,893 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla.1 st DCA 2005)
(emphasis added) (collectingcases);see also Wynn Drywall, 953 So. 2d at 30 ("[tlhemost
important consideration of the three statutory factors in section 47.122 is the convenience of the
witnesses.")(quotingBrown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379 (Fla.
1st DCA 1997));see also Pep Boys v. Montilla, 62 So. 3d 1162, 1166 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) ("the
convenience of the witnesses is probably the singlemost important consideration of the three
(quotingHu
statutory factors") v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275, 1279 (Fla.1st DCA 1983)).
Additionally,the parties counties of residence and the county where the action
accrued stronglyfavor an action proceedingin such county. See, e.g, Graham as tr. Of William
J. Graham Tr. Dated June 16, 1968 v. Virgil,324 So. 3d 12, 13 (Fla.4 , th
DCA 2021) (holdingthat
the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to trans fer for fbrum non conveniens
where the moving party presentedevidence that the incident at issue took placein another county,
and nearly all witnesses were located in another county; Botta v. Ciklin, Lubitz & O'Connell, 111
So. 3d 605, 610 (Fla.4th DCA 2017) (reversingtrial court's denial of daughters'amended motion
3
to transfer venue for fbrum non conevniens and reman(lingfor transfer of action from Broward
County to Seminole County); Mankowitz v. Staub, 553 So. ld 1299, 1300 (Fla.3d DCA 1989)
(reversingtrial court's order denying motion to transfer venue from Dade County to Monroe
County forfbrum non conveniens where cause of action accrued in Monroe County, both plaintiffs
resided in Monroe County, individual defendant resided in Monroe County, and only connection
to Dade County was that corporate defendant resided in both Monroe County and Dade County).
The plaintiff's
choice of forum is "not paramount," especially
where the accident occurred
in another county. P. K Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
(reversingorder denying transfer to county where accident occurred);Montilla, 62 So. 3d at 1165
(quotingHu, 426 So. 2d
'
at forum selection is no longerthe factor of over-
1279) ("The plaintiff's
ridingimportance."')."Other considerations include but are not limited to the avoidance of a
..
crowded court docket and the impositionofjury duty on an uninvolved community." Id.;see also
Botta, 222 So. 3d at 610 (I
reversing denied motion to transfer,finding law firm's selection of
Broward County unpersuasive where majority of witnesses resided in and relevant events took
place in Seminole County); Darby v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co.,751 So. ld 102 (Fla.2d DCA 2000)
(transferring judgment action arisingfrom vehicular accident to the county where the
declaratory
accident occurred).
forum of choice
Moreover, that a corporate defendant maintains an office in the plaintiff's
is insufficient to establish that the forum county is convenient to the witnesses and parties.
Eagle
Transp. Corp. ofN. Carolina v. Roch-Hernandez, 324 So. 3d 521,523 (Fla.4th DCA 2021) ("trial
court erred in denying the motion to transfer where the parties'
only connection to Broward County
is the fact that Eagle Transport's registeredagent and one of its fuelinghubs are located there");
Avis Rent A Car System,Inc. v. Broughton, 672 So.2d 656 (Fla.4th DCA court abused
1996) (trial
4
its discretion in denying transfer ofvenue from Broward to Brevard County where only connection
to Broward County was the fact that corporate defendant maintained resident agent in the county
and investigatingofficers and other witnesses were located in Brevard County where accident
occurred).
The most convenient forum for a claim based on UM coverage is the county where the
insured obtained his policy,or "where the accident occurred and where [the plaintiff]received
medical treatment." State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sosnowski, %36 So. ld 1099 (Fla.5th DCA
alleged that her insurer and
2003). In Sosnowski, the plaintiff its agent "fraudulentlyfailed to
disclose to her the existence of available uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and to pay her certain
UM benefits due under her automobile insurance policyfollowingan accident." U. at 1100. The
Fifth District Court ofAppeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the insurer's
motion to transfer venue on fbrum non conveniens grounds where the plaintiffs
initial venue
selection was based on the fact that the insurer had an office in the county where the lawsuit was
filed. Id. The court found the most convenient forum was either (1) where the insured obtained
her policy or (2) "where the accident occurred and where [the plaintiff]
received medical
treatment." Id.
the underlying relief sought determines venue. Oliver
In a suit for declaratoryrelief, v.
Severance, 542 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1st DCA 1989);Soowal v. Marden, 452 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla.3d
DCA 1984). It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny a motion to transfer venue for
forum non conveniens on relief action where the only connection to the chosen
a declaratory forum
is that an insurer has an office located in the county. Darby v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co., 751 So. 2d
102 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (transferring
declaratoryjudgment action arisingfrom vehicular accident
to the county where the accident occurred).Instead,the most convenient forum for an action for
5
declaratoryrelief on an automobile insurance policy is "the site of the accident,the place where
the [insureds']policy was issued, and the location of the court that will hear the underlying [I
claim." Id. at 103; see also Am. Vehicle Ins. Co. v. Goheagan, 35 So. 3d 1001, 1003 (Fla.4th DCA
2010) ("A cause of action on a contract accrues for venue purposes where the breach of that
contract occurs, and if a contract involves performance, the breach occurs where the defaulting
party fails to perform an act that it has agreed to do." (quotingKoslow v. Sanders, 4 So. 3d 37,38
(Fla.2d DCA 2009)) (findinginsurer's on a policydelivered in Palm Beach County
obligations
should have been performed in Palm Beach County, and therefore,bad faith action was proper in
Palm Beach County).
Florida courts look to where the accident occurred and where witnesses reside,not to where
the plaintiff's
attorney is located. See, e.g., Montilla, 61 So. 3d at 1166 (holding that trial court
abused its discretion in refusingto transfer venue from Broward County to Sarasota County where
the majority of the witnesses resided in Sarasota County and the only connection to Broward
attorney and one defendant who maintained an
County was the plaintiff's office there);Sullivan v.
Klein, 691 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla.2d DCA 1997) ("the trial court abused its discretion in not
venue from Dade County to Pinellas County where both partiesare non-Florida
transferring
residents,the accident occurred in Pinellas County, there are potential
witnesses,albeit nominal,
residingin Pinellas County, and the only connection to Dade County is the plaintiff's
attorney.").
GEICO respectfullyrequests this Court transfer this case to Hillsborough County, Florida,
on the basis offbrum non conveniens. The subjectaccident occurred in HillsboroughCounty, and
the majorityof,ifnot all,material witnesses reside in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Based on the
face of the Complaint, the key witnesses to this action are Plaintiff and Defendant Banchi
6
Hernandez, who reside in HillsboroughCounty. Compl. lili
2-3. Moreover, the subjectPolicywas
issued to Carmelo Sanchez in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Ex. A to Compl.
Further,based on knowledge and belief,which may be supplemented by record evidence,
if necessary, Plaintiff's treating the witnesses to the accident,and any law enforcement
physicians,
officers the records
responding to the accident are located in HillsboroughCounty. Additionally,
applicableto Plaintiff's bodily injuryclaims, includingall medical records, are presumably located
in HillsboroughCounty, where, based on knowledge and belief,Plaintiff was treated.
Uke Wynn Drywall, Montilla, Botta, Roch-Hernandez, and Sosnowski, Hillsborough
County, is the venue most convenient for the greatest number of partiesand witnesses. Although
the Complaint involves a claim for declaratory
judgment againstGEICO, Soowal, Darby, and
Goheagan nevertheless support that such claim properlyresides in the county in which the policy
was delivered,ought to have been performed, and where the underlying accident giving rise to
need for declaration occurred. In particular,
plaintiff's case law is clear that the action should lie
in the county where the underlying accident giving rise to Plaintiff's need for this declaration of
coverage occurred: HillsboroughCounty.
Conversely,there is no sufficient connection to Broward County. The only connection
between this case and Broward County, Florida is that Plaintiff's attorneys are located there,which
is See Montilla;Botta. That the action could properly
not a relevant factor in the Court's analysis.
be brought in Broward County due to one o f GEICO's several o ffices being located there does not
establish a convenient forum, as the witnesses to the Accident would incur substantial
inconvenience and undue expense if the case were to continue in Broward County. See Botta-,
Roch-Hernandez. Plaintiff's choice of forum should be given little weight, if any, in lightofthis
7
case's strong nexus to Hillsborough County, and zero connections to Broward County. See
Montilla? Tenore.
Finally,the interest ofjusticeweighs in favor ofthis case being tried by a jury in the county
and events
with a substantial connection to the parties(Plaintiff) at issue in this case - Hillsborough
County, Florida. See Montilla; Botta. Therefore, GEICO respectfully
requests this Court enter an
this action from Broward County, Florida,to Hillsborough County, Florida.
order transferring
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company, respectfullyrequests
that the Court enter an order transferringthis action from Broward County, Florida, to
HillsboroughCounty, Florida on the basis offbrum non conveniens, and for such other and further
relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
RIVKIN RADLER, LLP
By: /s/ Rebecca L. Matthews
Jill F. Bechtold
Florida Bar No.. 0017196
Email: Jill.Bechtold@rivkin.com
Jennifer P. Lawson
Florida Bar No.. 119947
Email: Jennifer.Lawson@rivkin.com
Dion K. Bass
Florida Bar No.. 1002209
Email:
Joshua M. Gostel
Florida Bar No..1010506
Email: Joshua.Gostel@rivkin.com
Curtis L. Campbell
Florida Bar No.: 10300744
Email: Curtis.Campbell@rivkin.com
Morgan A. Moceyunas
Florida Bar. No.:1025577
Email: Morgan.Moceyunas@rivkin.com
Rebecca L. Matthews
Florida Bar No.. 1032338
8
Email: Rebecca.Matthews@rivkin.com
1301 RiverplaceBoulevard, 10th Floor
Jacksonville,Florida 32207-9047
Tel: (904) 792-8925
Fax: (904) 467-3461
AttorneysMDefendant,
GEICO General Insurance Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoingwas filed on June 30,2023, using the Florida
Court's E-FilingPortal,which will send a copy to:
LAW OFFICES OF THE POWELL LAW FIRM, P.A.
LUKE T. MOREAU, ESQ. Brett C. Powell, Esquire
Luke T. Moreau, Esquire 17024 SW 80th Court
1761 N. Young Circle,Suite 3-343 Palmetto Bay, FL 33157
Hollywood, FL 33020 brett@powellappeals.com
luke@lukemoreaulaw. com Co-Counsel.for Plaintiff
com
ana@lukemoreaulaw. com
Co-Counsel.for Plaintiff
SILVERSTEIN, SILVERSTEIN &
SILVERSTEIN, P.A.
Gregg A. Silverstein,
Esquire
504 Aventura Corporate Center
20801 Biscayne Boulevard
Aventura, FL 33180
com
gsilverstein@ssspa-law.
gfresco@ssspa-law.com
Co-Counsel.for Plaintiff
By: /s/ Rebecca L. Matthews
Attorney
9
Preview
Filing# 176546221 E-Filed 06/3 0/2023 01:36:14 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE-23-008049 OMAR SANTIAGO BETANCOURT, Plaintiff, VS. CAROLINA BANCHI HERNANDEZ AND GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. i DEFENDANT, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE yOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO"), pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes,and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060, moves to transfer venue forfbrum non conveniens from Broward County, Florida,to Hillsborough County, Florida and states as follows: 1. This case arises from an accident that occurred on or about October 8, 2021, in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Compl. 17 11-12. 2. Omar Betancourt, a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida (Compl. 7 Plaintiff, 2),allegeshe was injuredin an automobile crash that was caused by and uninsured/underinsured motorist,Defendant Carolina Banchi Hernandez ("Defendant Banchi Hernandez"). Compl. 'Ilf 11- 15,20. 3 In the Corrected First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"),Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuriesallegedlysustained in the October 8, 2021 accident and, specifically, sues GEICO to recover certain uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") benefits pursuant to a *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 06/30/2023 01:36:14 PM.**** policy of automobile insurance issued to Carmelo Sanchezl,policynumber XXXXXX9929 (the "Policy").Compl. f 6-8, 19-23. 4. Plaintiff asserts the following four (4) causes of action: Count I - Negligence Claim againstDefendant Banchi Hernandez Count I - DeclaratoryRelief Against Defendant GEICO Count II - Fraudulent MisrepresentationClaim Against Defendant GEICO Count III - Bad Faith Claim Against Defendant GEICO 5. With respect a resident of Hillsborough County, to the subjectaccident,Plaintiff, Florida,allegesthat Defendant Banchi Hernandez, a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida caused the subjectaccident on October 8, 2021, in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Compl. 1172-3, 11-12. Further,the subjectpolicywas issued to Carmelo Sanchez in Hillsborough County, Florida. Ex. A to Compl. 6. For the following reasons, GEICO respectfullyrequests this Court transfer this action to Hillsborough County, Florida,on the basis offbrum non conveniens. MEMORANDUM OF LAW Section 47.122, Florida Statutes,provides that "[florthe convenience of the partiesor any court ofrecord may transfer any civil action to any other witnesses or in the interests ofjustice, court of record in which it might have been brought."§ 47.122, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to this statute, a defendant may show that "either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requireschange for the convenience of the partiesor witnesses." Cardelles v. Catholic Health Servs., Inc., 14 So. 3d 1025, 1027 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (quotingEggers v. Eggers,776 So.2d 1096, 1098 (Fla.5th DCA 2001)). Although a party moving to transfer an action for convenience must generally Although Plaintiff allegesthe Policy was issued to him, the Policy attached to Plaintiffs Complaint shows that the 1 Policy was issued to Carmelo Sanchez, not Plaintiff. Compl. Ex. A. 2 "submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary lighton the issue of the convenience of the partiesand witnesses... [t]heonly exceptionwould be where the complaint itself shows on its face that a forum non conveniens transfer is warranted." Id. (quoting first Wynn Drywall, Inc. v. Aequicap Program Adm'rs, Inc., 953 So.2d 28, 30 (Fla.4th DCA 2007) and then Ground Improvement Techniques,Inc. v. Merchs. Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla.5th DCA 1998)). "Florida courts have consistently held that it is error to deny a transfer of venue where a vehicular accident occurs in a Florida county other than the forum county and the witnesses are located outside of the forum county and many or most of the witnesses are located in the county in which the accident occurred." Morrill v. Lytle,893 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla.1 st DCA 2005) (emphasis added) (collectingcases);see also Wynn Drywall, 953 So. 2d at 30 ("[tlhemost important consideration of the three statutory factors in section 47.122 is the convenience of the witnesses.")(quotingBrown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997));see also Pep Boys v. Montilla, 62 So. 3d 1162, 1166 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) ("the convenience of the witnesses is probably the singlemost important consideration of the three (quotingHu statutory factors") v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275, 1279 (Fla.1st DCA 1983)). Additionally,the parties counties of residence and the county where the action accrued stronglyfavor an action proceedingin such county. See, e.g, Graham as tr. Of William J. Graham Tr. Dated June 16, 1968 v. Virgil,324 So. 3d 12, 13 (Fla.4 , th DCA 2021) (holdingthat the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to trans fer for fbrum non conveniens where the moving party presentedevidence that the incident at issue took placein another county, and nearly all witnesses were located in another county; Botta v. Ciklin, Lubitz & O'Connell, 111 So. 3d 605, 610 (Fla.4th DCA 2017) (reversingtrial court's denial of daughters'amended motion 3 to transfer venue for fbrum non conevniens and reman(lingfor transfer of action from Broward County to Seminole County); Mankowitz v. Staub, 553 So. ld 1299, 1300 (Fla.3d DCA 1989) (reversingtrial court's order denying motion to transfer venue from Dade County to Monroe County forfbrum non conveniens where cause of action accrued in Monroe County, both plaintiffs resided in Monroe County, individual defendant resided in Monroe County, and only connection to Dade County was that corporate defendant resided in both Monroe County and Dade County). The plaintiff's choice of forum is "not paramount," especially where the accident occurred in another county. P. K Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reversingorder denying transfer to county where accident occurred);Montilla, 62 So. 3d at 1165 (quotingHu, 426 So. 2d ' at forum selection is no longerthe factor of over- 1279) ("The plaintiff's ridingimportance."')."Other considerations include but are not limited to the avoidance of a .. crowded court docket and the impositionofjury duty on an uninvolved community." Id.;see also Botta, 222 So. 3d at 610 (I reversing denied motion to transfer,finding law firm's selection of Broward County unpersuasive where majority of witnesses resided in and relevant events took place in Seminole County); Darby v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co.,751 So. ld 102 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (transferring judgment action arisingfrom vehicular accident to the county where the declaratory accident occurred). forum of choice Moreover, that a corporate defendant maintains an office in the plaintiff's is insufficient to establish that the forum county is convenient to the witnesses and parties. Eagle Transp. Corp. ofN. Carolina v. Roch-Hernandez, 324 So. 3d 521,523 (Fla.4th DCA 2021) ("trial court erred in denying the motion to transfer where the parties' only connection to Broward County is the fact that Eagle Transport's registeredagent and one of its fuelinghubs are located there"); Avis Rent A Car System,Inc. v. Broughton, 672 So.2d 656 (Fla.4th DCA court abused 1996) (trial 4 its discretion in denying transfer ofvenue from Broward to Brevard County where only connection to Broward County was the fact that corporate defendant maintained resident agent in the county and investigatingofficers and other witnesses were located in Brevard County where accident occurred). The most convenient forum for a claim based on UM coverage is the county where the insured obtained his policy,or "where the accident occurred and where [the plaintiff]received medical treatment." State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sosnowski, %36 So. ld 1099 (Fla.5th DCA alleged that her insurer and 2003). In Sosnowski, the plaintiff its agent "fraudulentlyfailed to disclose to her the existence of available uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and to pay her certain UM benefits due under her automobile insurance policyfollowingan accident." U. at 1100. The Fifth District Court ofAppeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the insurer's motion to transfer venue on fbrum non conveniens grounds where the plaintiffs initial venue selection was based on the fact that the insurer had an office in the county where the lawsuit was filed. Id. The court found the most convenient forum was either (1) where the insured obtained her policy or (2) "where the accident occurred and where [the plaintiff] received medical treatment." Id. the underlying relief sought determines venue. Oliver In a suit for declaratoryrelief, v. Severance, 542 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1st DCA 1989);Soowal v. Marden, 452 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla.3d DCA 1984). It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny a motion to transfer venue for forum non conveniens on relief action where the only connection to the chosen a declaratory forum is that an insurer has an office located in the county. Darby v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co., 751 So. 2d 102 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (transferring declaratoryjudgment action arisingfrom vehicular accident to the county where the accident occurred).Instead,the most convenient forum for an action for 5 declaratoryrelief on an automobile insurance policy is "the site of the accident,the place where the [insureds']policy was issued, and the location of the court that will hear the underlying [I claim." Id. at 103; see also Am. Vehicle Ins. Co. v. Goheagan, 35 So. 3d 1001, 1003 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) ("A cause of action on a contract accrues for venue purposes where the breach of that contract occurs, and if a contract involves performance, the breach occurs where the defaulting party fails to perform an act that it has agreed to do." (quotingKoslow v. Sanders, 4 So. 3d 37,38 (Fla.2d DCA 2009)) (findinginsurer's on a policydelivered in Palm Beach County obligations should have been performed in Palm Beach County, and therefore,bad faith action was proper in Palm Beach County). Florida courts look to where the accident occurred and where witnesses reside,not to where the plaintiff's attorney is located. See, e.g., Montilla, 61 So. 3d at 1166 (holding that trial court abused its discretion in refusingto transfer venue from Broward County to Sarasota County where the majority of the witnesses resided in Sarasota County and the only connection to Broward attorney and one defendant who maintained an County was the plaintiff's office there);Sullivan v. Klein, 691 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla.2d DCA 1997) ("the trial court abused its discretion in not venue from Dade County to Pinellas County where both partiesare non-Florida transferring residents,the accident occurred in Pinellas County, there are potential witnesses,albeit nominal, residingin Pinellas County, and the only connection to Dade County is the plaintiff's attorney."). GEICO respectfullyrequests this Court transfer this case to Hillsborough County, Florida, on the basis offbrum non conveniens. The subjectaccident occurred in HillsboroughCounty, and the majorityof,ifnot all,material witnesses reside in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Based on the face of the Complaint, the key witnesses to this action are Plaintiff and Defendant Banchi 6 Hernandez, who reside in HillsboroughCounty. Compl. lili 2-3. Moreover, the subjectPolicywas issued to Carmelo Sanchez in HillsboroughCounty, Florida. Ex. A to Compl. Further,based on knowledge and belief,which may be supplemented by record evidence, if necessary, Plaintiff's treating the witnesses to the accident,and any law enforcement physicians, officers the records responding to the accident are located in HillsboroughCounty. Additionally, applicableto Plaintiff's bodily injuryclaims, includingall medical records, are presumably located in HillsboroughCounty, where, based on knowledge and belief,Plaintiff was treated. Uke Wynn Drywall, Montilla, Botta, Roch-Hernandez, and Sosnowski, Hillsborough County, is the venue most convenient for the greatest number of partiesand witnesses. Although the Complaint involves a claim for declaratory judgment againstGEICO, Soowal, Darby, and Goheagan nevertheless support that such claim properlyresides in the county in which the policy was delivered,ought to have been performed, and where the underlying accident giving rise to need for declaration occurred. In particular, plaintiff's case law is clear that the action should lie in the county where the underlying accident giving rise to Plaintiff's need for this declaration of coverage occurred: HillsboroughCounty. Conversely,there is no sufficient connection to Broward County. The only connection between this case and Broward County, Florida is that Plaintiff's attorneys are located there,which is See Montilla;Botta. That the action could properly not a relevant factor in the Court's analysis. be brought in Broward County due to one o f GEICO's several o ffices being located there does not establish a convenient forum, as the witnesses to the Accident would incur substantial inconvenience and undue expense if the case were to continue in Broward County. See Botta-, Roch-Hernandez. Plaintiff's choice of forum should be given little weight, if any, in lightofthis 7 case's strong nexus to Hillsborough County, and zero connections to Broward County. See Montilla? Tenore. Finally,the interest ofjusticeweighs in favor ofthis case being tried by a jury in the county and events with a substantial connection to the parties(Plaintiff) at issue in this case - Hillsborough County, Florida. See Montilla; Botta. Therefore, GEICO respectfully requests this Court enter an this action from Broward County, Florida,to Hillsborough County, Florida. order transferring CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company, respectfullyrequests that the Court enter an order transferringthis action from Broward County, Florida, to HillsboroughCounty, Florida on the basis offbrum non conveniens, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. RIVKIN RADLER, LLP By: /s/ Rebecca L. Matthews Jill F. Bechtold Florida Bar No.. 0017196 Email: Jill.Bechtold@rivkin.com Jennifer P. Lawson Florida Bar No.. 119947 Email: Jennifer.Lawson@rivkin.com Dion K. Bass Florida Bar No.. 1002209 Email: Joshua M. Gostel Florida Bar No..1010506 Email: Joshua.Gostel@rivkin.com Curtis L. Campbell Florida Bar No.: 10300744 Email: Curtis.Campbell@rivkin.com Morgan A. Moceyunas Florida Bar. No.:1025577 Email: Morgan.Moceyunas@rivkin.com Rebecca L. Matthews Florida Bar No.. 1032338 8 Email: Rebecca.Matthews@rivkin.com 1301 RiverplaceBoulevard, 10th Floor Jacksonville,Florida 32207-9047 Tel: (904) 792-8925 Fax: (904) 467-3461 AttorneysMDefendant, GEICO General Insurance Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoingwas filed on June 30,2023, using the Florida Court's E-FilingPortal,which will send a copy to: LAW OFFICES OF THE POWELL LAW FIRM, P.A. LUKE T. MOREAU, ESQ. Brett C. Powell, Esquire Luke T. Moreau, Esquire 17024 SW 80th Court 1761 N. Young Circle,Suite 3-343 Palmetto Bay, FL 33157 Hollywood, FL 33020 brett@powellappeals.com luke@lukemoreaulaw. com Co-Counsel.for Plaintiff com ana@lukemoreaulaw. com Co-Counsel.for Plaintiff SILVERSTEIN, SILVERSTEIN & SILVERSTEIN, P.A. Gregg A. Silverstein, Esquire 504 Aventura Corporate Center 20801 Biscayne Boulevard Aventura, FL 33180 com gsilverstein@ssspa-law. gfresco@ssspa-law.com Co-Counsel.for Plaintiff By: /s/ Rebecca L. Matthews Attorney 9