Banks v. Spray

Citations: 149 So. 3d 1082; 2014 WL 803174Docket: 1121338

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; February 27, 2014; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalConcurrence Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to vacate the Clarke Circuit Court's order from July 8, 2013, which denied its motion to transfer a case to Mobile Circuit Court. The underlying case involves an automobile accident that occurred in Mobile County on February 8, 2010, in which Sandra H. Banks sued Robert Gary Spray and State Farm in Clarke County, claiming injuries from Spray's conduct and asserting entitlement to insurance proceeds from State Farm for her uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

State Farm argued for the transfer based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, citing convenience for the parties and witnesses, as well as the interest of justice. They provided an affidavit from a law enforcement officer, David Jones, indicating that Mobile County would be a more convenient venue for him as a witness, given his proximity to the Mobile courthouse.

The trial court denied the motion, prompting State Farm to seek a writ of mandamus. The court noted that a petition for such a writ is the proper means to review a denial of a venue change and that the moving party must demonstrate either the convenience of parties or witnesses or the interest of justice to justify a transfer. The court reviews these denials for an abuse of discretion. State Farm maintains that both factors favor transferring the case to Mobile County.

Venue for the action is deemed proper in both Clarke County and Mobile County according to Ala.Code § 6-3-21.1. This statute allows courts of general jurisdiction to transfer civil actions to a more appropriate venue for the convenience of parties and witnesses or in the interest of justice. The doctrine of forum non conveniens enables a court to decline jurisdiction if another forum is significantly more convenient. The trial judge has discretion in this decision, considering factors such as the location of events, ease of access to evidence, and the costs associated with witness attendance. Should the factors strongly favor the defendant, the judge may dismiss the complaint. While the trial court has discretion, the Legislature intended for courts to transfer cases when justice requires, as indicated by the mandatory language of "shall" in the statute. State Farm argues for a transfer to Mobile County, presenting evidence that it is a significantly more convenient forum, supported by the plaintiff's admissions of residing in both counties at different times.

The individual acknowledged that her residence is under 20 miles from the Mobile County courthouse, the accident occurred in Mobile County, and she was transported to Mobile Infirmary by Mobile Fire and Rescue. Additionally, a passenger in her vehicle resides in Mobile County. The affidavit of Mobile Police Officer David Jones noted that it would be more convenient for him to try the case in Mobile County, given his proximity to the courthouse. State Farm provided evidence that the accident, investigators, healthcare providers, and potential witnesses are all located in Mobile County, demonstrating that Mobile County is a significantly more convenient forum than Clarke County. 

The trial court's denial of State Farm’s motion to transfer the case to Mobile County was deemed an exceeding of discretion. According to § 6-3-21.1, the interest of justice necessitates transferring cases from counties with minimal connections to those with strong connections. The court noted that litigation should occur in the forum where the injury happened and considered the burden on resources in an unrelated county. It emphasized that Mobile County has a strong nexus to the case, as the accident occurred there, local emergency services responded, the treatment occurred in Mobile County, and the passenger is a resident there. In contrast, Clarke County's only connection is the partial residence of the plaintiff and State Farm's business operations. The court concluded that the interests of justice favor transferring the case to Mobile County based on these connections.

None of the witnesses, except for Banks, lives in Clarke County, and the relevant facts of the case do not pertain to Clarke County. There is no demonstrated necessity for Clarke County to handle a case originating in Mobile County solely due to Banks’ part-time residence there. Mobile County has a significant connection to the matter, and transferring the case there aligns with the interests of justice. The ruling asserts that both the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice under the forum non conveniens doctrine necessitate moving the case from Clarke County to Mobile County. Consequently, State Farm has established a legal basis for the transfer. The court grants State Farm's petition, instructing the Clarke Circuit Court to vacate its previous order denying the motion to transfer and to approve the transfer to Mobile Circuit Court. The decision is supported by Judges Bolin, Parker, and Bryan, with Judges Murdock and Main concurring in result, while Chief Justice Moore dissents and Judge Wise recuses herself.