Global Thermoforming Incorporated v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2:20-cv-01614

GTI (Wisconsin corporation; principal place of business in Tempe, Arizona) held an AOI insurance policy covering facilities in Arizona, Tennessee, and Racine, Wisconsin. A theft occurred at the Racine, WI facility on May 25, 2019.
GTI submitted a claim; AOI investigated (requested documents, conducted exams under oath), and in June 2020 paid $141,138, which AOI said satisfied the claim; GTI disputed sufficiency.
GTI sued in Arizona Superior Court alleging breach of contract and tortious bad faith; AOI removed to federal court and moved to transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The parties agreed the case could have been brought in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s Jones transfer factors.
The court found Wisconsin substantive law governs the contract claim (insured risk located in WI) and likely governs the bad-faith tort; most witnesses, physical evidence, and AOI claim-handling activity were centered in Wisconsin.
Balancing convenience, witness/evidence accessibility, choice-of-law, and fairness, the court granted AOI’s motion and ordered transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case may be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)	GTI asserts its Arizona forum choice should be respected; Arizona connections exist (PPB, some communications, two officers in AZ).	AOI argues transfer to EDW is appropriate because convenience and justice favor Wisconsin.	Transfer is proper; EDW is an available forum and §1404(a) factors favor transfer.
Governing law for claims	GTI stressed Arizona ties and delivery of the policy to Arizona.	AOI: Wisconsin law governs because the insured risk and claim adjustment occurred in Wisconsin.	Wisconsin law governs breach of contract and likely governs bad-faith claim under Arizona choice-of-law rules.
Weight of plaintiff’s choice of forum	GTI: selecting its home forum (Arizona PPB) warrants strong presumption against transfer.	AOI: GTI’s forum choice is less important because core events and contacts center in Wisconsin.	Plaintiff’s choice gets weight but is outweighed by other factors favoring transfer.
Convenience of witnesses, access to evidence, and interests of justice	GTI: some documents and two employees are in Arizona; argues theft-details may be irrelevant to coverage.	AOI: majority of witnesses (police, caretaker, AOI adjusters), physical evidence, and claim file are in Wisconsin, making EDW more convenient.	Convenience of witnesses, access to proof, and fairness strongly favor transfer to Wisconsin.

Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption favoring plaintiff’s choice of forum)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens and deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (purpose of transfer under federal rules is convenience, not shifting inconvenience)
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (enumeration of § 1404(a) factors)
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (federal court applies forum state’s conflict-of-law rules)
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1986) (weight to plaintiff’s forum choice and burden of inconvenience)
Beckler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 195 Ariz. 282 (Ariz. 1999) (principal location of insured risk governs insurance-contract rights)
Bates v. Superior Court, 156 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. 1987) (choice-of-law approach for multistate insurance bad-faith claims)