Kevin Simek and Falynn Simek v. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2D2024-2463 | District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District 2025 | LawTools

Cases Cited(9)

RJG Env't, Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins., 62 So. 3d 678, 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)Followed

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v. Cedar Res., Inc., 761 So. 2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)Followed

Hightower v. Est. of Lyman, 58 So. 3d 377, 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)Followed

Eth-Wha, Inc. v. Blankenship, 483 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)Followed

P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)Followed

Johnson v. Johnson, 288 So. 3d 745, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)Followed

Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)Distinguished

Sheffield Steel Prods., Inc. v. Powell Bros., 385 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)Followed

Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v. Elsenheimer, 952 So. 2d 575, 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)Followed

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed an order transferring the Simeks' insurance dispute from Hillsborough County to Polk County on forum non conveniens grounds. The court held that Hillsborough County was a proper venue and that Heritage failed to provide evidence showing substantial inconvenience or undue expense sufficient to overcome the plaintiffs' venue choice.

Holdings

Hillsborough County was a proper venue because Heritage maintained its principal place of business there, and section 47.051 permits an action against a corporation to be filed in the county where the corporation has or usually keeps an office for transacting its customary business.
When a plaintiff selects a venue that is proper under the applicable venue statute, the plaintiff's choice is presumptively correct, and the defendant must prove substantial inconvenience or undue expense requiring a change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.
An unsupported and unverified motion, together with speculation about travel and depositions, does not establish the substantial inconvenience or undue expense necessary to transfer venue on forum non conveniens grounds.

Questions Presented

Whether Hillsborough County was a proper venue under section 47.051, Florida Statutes.
Whether Heritage met its burden to overcome the plaintiffs' choice of Hillsborough County by proving that Polk County was a more convenient forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by transferring venue based on an unsupported motion and speculation rather than competent evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (9)

RJG Env't, Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins., 62 So. 3d 678, 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)(followed)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v. Cedar Res., Inc., 761 So. 2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(followed)
Hightower v. Est. of Lyman, 58 So. 3d 377, 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)(followed)
Eth-Wha, Inc. v. Blankenship, 483 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(followed)
P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(followed)
Johnson v. Johnson, 288 So. 3d 745, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)(followed)
Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(distinguished)
Sheffield Steel Prods., Inc. v. Powell Bros., 385 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)(followed)
Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v. Elsenheimer, 952 So. 2d 575, 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download Case Download Case Data Download Case and Data Download AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF

Loading document…

Kevin Simek and Falynn Simek v. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company