Forum Non Conveniens in Florida

Kinney System, Inc. v. The Continental Insurance Co.
Case No. 84-329 (Florida, January 25, 1996)

In Kinney System, Inc. v. The Continental Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Florida addressed the issue of forum non conveniens. Simply put, forum non conveniens determines whether Florida is the "convenient forum" to hear the case at issue. The Court reviewed the following certified question:

Is a trial court precluded from dismissing an action on the basis of forum non conveniens where one of the parties is a foreign corporation that: (a) is doing business in Florida; (b) is registered to do business in Florida; (c) has its principal place of business in Florida.

Id.

The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. That is, courts can transfer a case if certain requirements are met. This decision may have a dramatic impact on international cases and those claims where a substantial amount of the acts that form a basis for the claim occurred outside of Florida. Previously, where a corporation had its principal place of business, or in some cases where the corporation was licensed to do business (as in Florida), the case could not be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. Thus, the mere fact that a corporation had its principal place of business in Florida was enough to prevent the case from being dismissed even though the injury and the accident occurred outside of Florida.

In the Kinney case, Continental Insurance Company had a contract negotiated in New York to cover Kinney's employees in a variety of different states, including Florida. Continental is a New Hampshire corporation with principal place of business in New Jersey. Kinney is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York.

Continental however, was registered to do business in Florida and operates a Ft. Lauderdale claims office. Kinney has a regional office and operates parking garages in Dade County, Florida. Based on these Florida connections, Continental sued Kinney in Florida Circuit Court. The trial court dismissed based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens doctrine. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court claiming that where a corporate party is licensed to do business in Florida with a place of business in Florida, forum non conveniens is not applicable.

The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the long standing decision of Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1978) and adopted the more practical standard applied in federal cases. The Court in analyzing the decision applies the federal forum non conveniens doctrine in the following manner:

As a prerequisite, the court must establish that an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case.

Next, the Court must consider all relevant private interest factors, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiff's initial forum choice.

If the Court finds that the balance of private interests is it must then determine whether public interest factors tip the balance in favor of a trial in another forum.

If the Court decides that the balance favors another forum, it must finally insure that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternative forum without undue convenience or prejudice.

Essentially, the court will determine whether the corporation is amenable to process in the alternative forum, and whether the alternative forum offers an adequate remedy. Importantly, whether there is a less generous award available in an alternate jurisdiction is not a factor to be weighed by the court. Additionally, the courts will look at adequate access to evidence and relevant sites, adequate access to witnesses, adequate enforcement of judgments and the practicalities and expenses associated with litigation in the alternative forum.

If the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative forum will not significantly undermine the private interests of any particular party, the court can look at the public interests including expenses, and the protection of dockets within the jurisdiction. Finally, so long as the foreign forum does provide a remedy, forum non conveniens can be utilized to transfer the case to that forum.

Although defendants can move to have the case dismissed such that it is refiled in a new jurisdiction, the parties stipulate automatically to two things:

That the action will be treated in the new forum as though it had been filed in the forum on the date it was filed in Florida, with service of process accepted as of that date; and

That the plaintiff will lose the benefit of all stipulations made by the defendant if it fails to file the action in the new forum within 120 days after the date of the Florida dismissal becomes final.

In summation, the impact of the Kinney decision is dramatic. Specifically, it will allow defendants who have already existing cases to potentially have those cases transferred to a jurisdiction which may benefit the plaintiff. For example, those jurisdictions where punitive damages, and/or damages for pain and suffering, are capped. Additionally, the jurisdictions may have less generous awards than Florida. Conversely, it may force defendants to have cases brought in territories where (a) they do not have retained trial counsel and (b) where the jurisdiction is more plaintiff friendly. It is unclear as to whether all the defendants in a case must join the motion. In any event, defendants should start to scrutinize cases more closely to determine the proper forum for the cases to be tried and whether they wish to transfer to another forum if available.