Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184

Background

Allstate issued an auto policy to Joseph Hradecky that included an Amended Pennsylvania Auto Amendatory Endorsement and listed Hradecky’s address in Clinton, Pennsylvania on the Policy Declarations page.
Hradecky was rear-ended in Florida on December 3, 2014; he sued the at-fault sheriff (Count I, negligence) in Florida and sued Allstate (Count II) for failure to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits.
The Endorsement contains a forum-selection clause stating: “Any and all lawsuits related in any way to this coverage shall be brought, heard, and decided in the county in which your address shown on the Policy Declarations is located.”
Allstate moved to dismiss Count II for improper venue, arguing the mandatory forum-selection clause required litigation in the Pennsylvania county listed on the Declarations page.
The trial court denied Allstate’s motion, finding the general policy venue provisions controlled over the Endorsement; Allstate appealed.
The appellate court reviewed de novo and considered whether the Endorsement controls and whether its clause is mandatory and enforceable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Endorsement or the general policy controls venue	Hradecky argued the Endorsement conflicted with the policy and that the general policy provision (broader coverage) should prevail	Allstate argued endorsements control inconsistent policy terms and the Endorsement governs forum	Endorsement controls over inconsistent general policy language; trial court erred in concluding otherwise
Whether the forum-selection clause is mandatory or permissive	Hradecky implicitly treated clause as permissive or not applicable	Allstate argued clause used mandatory language requiring litigation where the Declarations address is located	Clause is mandatory because it requires suits to “shall be brought, heard, and decided” in the specified county
Whether a mandatory forum-selection clause is enforceable here	Hradecky argued judicial uneconomy of splitting related claims justified keeping venue in Florida	Allstate argued absence of any showing the clause is unreasonable or unjust requires enforcement	Enforceable: plaintiff did not show clause would be unreasonable or unjust; inconvenience or added expense is insufficient
Remedy for improper venue under mandatory clause	Hradecky sought to litigate UM claim in Florida alongside negligence claim	Allstate sought dismissal for improper venue per clause	Court reversed denial of dismissal and remanded for entry of dismissal consistent with clause

Key Cases Cited

Espresso Disposition Corp. v. Santana Sales & Mktg. Grp., Inc., 105 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (standard of review for contract interpretation and related precedents)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 24 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (insurance contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Pitu, Inc., 95 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (insurance policies governed by contract principles)
Family Care Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 875 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (endorsement controls when inconsistent with policy)
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Levine & Partners, P.A., 848 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (endorsement terms control contrary policy provisions)
Steuart Petroleum Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 696 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (endorsement controls over conflicting body of policy)
Sonus-USA, Inc. v. Thomas W. Lyons, Inc., 966 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (distinguishing mandatory versus permissive forum-selection clauses)
Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1986) (mandatory forum-selection clauses enforceable absent unreasonableness or injustice)
Golden Palm Hosp. Inc. v. Stearns Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 874 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (use of “shall” indicates mandatory provision)
Farmers Group, Inc. v. Madio & Co., Inc., 869 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (forum-selection clause enforceability principles)
Taurus Stornoway Invs., LLC v. Kerley, 38 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (clause valid absent argument or record evidence of unreasonableness)