2015 CO 6
Colo.2015Background
- Three separate Boulder County actions (Hagan, Ewald, Mayfield) by insureds against Farmers alleging breach of contract and improper denial of underinsured motorist benefits; plaintiffs filed in Boulder County though accidents/medical providers tied to other counties in some cases.
- Farmers moved to change venue under C.R.C.P. 98(f)(2) to Arapahoe or El Paso County, supporting each motion with attorney affidavits including Google Maps distances and travel-time printouts for plaintiffs and their medical providers.
- Trial courts granted the changes of venue in all three matters based mainly on the shorter travel distances/times to the transferee courts.
- Plaintiffs petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21, arguing the venue orders were erroneous and exposing inconsistent application of Rule 98 within the district.
- The Supreme Court issued rules to show cause, then made them absolute, holding Boulder County was a proper venue (Farmers is a nonresident) and that Farmers’ affidavits failed to satisfy the Sampson evidentiary standard for changing venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Boulder County a proper venue under C.R.C.P. 98(c)(1)? | Plaintiffs: Yes — Farmers is nonresident so plaintiffs may designate any county, including Boulder. | Farmers: Boulder was improper because witnesses/medical providers lacked ties to Boulder. | Held: Boulder is a proper venue; Rule 98(c)(1) allows plaintiff choice when defendant is nonresident. |
| Did Farmers meet its burden under C.R.C.P. 98(f)(2) to change venue for convenience of witnesses and ends of justice? | Plaintiffs: No — Farmers’ evidence was limited to distances and times and focused on plaintiffs, not witnesses’ testimony or Farmers’ witnesses. | Farmers: Travel distances/times show transferee courts are more convenient for witnesses. | Held: No — movant must identify witnesses, summarize nature/materiality/admissibility of testimony, and show how witnesses would be better accommodated; Google Maps affidavits were insufficient. |
| Were plaintiffs’ conveniences relevant to movant’s showing? | Plaintiffs: Irrelevant — defendant cannot rely on plaintiff’s address to defeat a venue expressly permitted by Rule 98(c)(1). | Farmers: Plaintiff convenience indicates inconvenience justifying transfer. | Held: Plaintiff convenience is not dispositive; movant cannot use plaintiffs’ residences to defeat a permissible venue choice. |
| Do the "ends of justice" or jury vicinage concerns justify transfer here? | Plaintiffs: No — no civil vicinage requirement; differences among Front Range jurisdictions negligible. | Farmers: Transfer promotes jury vicinage, deters forum shopping, and reduces witness costs. | Held: No — these arguments insufficient to overcome plaintiff’s choice and do not substitute for Sampson-compliant evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. District Court, 590 P.2d 958 (Colo. 1979) (sets affidavit/evidentiary requirements for venue-change motions under Rule 98(f)(2))
- Ranger Ins. Co. v. District Court, 647 P.2d 1229 (Colo. 1982) (reiterates Sampson standard; limited record cannot support transfer)
- Department of Highways v. District Court, 635 P.2d 889 (Colo. 1981) (example of sufficient affidavit identifying witnesses, testimony, and inconvenience to moving party)
- Tillery v. District Court, 692 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1984) (plaintiff’s choice of venue entitled to deference absent adequate showing under Rule 98(f)(2))
- Bacher v. District Court, 527 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1974) (significant travel differentials can warrant change of venue)
- Denver Air Center v. District Court, 839 P.2d 1182 (Colo. 1992) (confirms plaintiff may choose any county under Rule 98(c)(1) when defendant is nonresident)