Steiner Transocean Ltd v. Efremova
109 So. 3d 871
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Steiner appeals a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss Efremova's second amended complaint based on a forum selection clause.
- Efremova, injured as a hairstylist aboard a Carnival cruise on December 8, 2008, sued multiple Steiner entities and Carnival in Miami-Dade circuit court.
- Her complaint alleged Jones Act negligence, seaworthiness, maintenance and cure, failure to treat, and wages/penalties, but did not attach her employment contract.
- Steiner attached Efremova's September 11, 2008 employment contract, which mandates litigation in the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.
- The trial court refused to look beyond the complaint to consider the contract, treating the decision as limited to the four corners of the complaint.
- This opinion holds that the four-corners rule is not always controlling and that extrinsic evidence may be considered when enforcing a contractual forum selection clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May extrinsic contract evidence be considered for forum clause validity? | Efremova contends four-corners rule prevents considering the contract. | Steiner argues the contract should dictate venue regardless of attachments. | Extrinsic evidence may be considered; forum clause enforceable. |
| Is a contractual forum selection clause treated like improper venue for purposes of dismissal? | Efremova argues the clause is irrelevant if contract not attached. | Steiner argues dismissal is required under the clause. | Clause is analogous to improper venue; dismissal may be appropriate. |
| Did the trial court err in not applying the contract to require dismissal? | Efremova treated the clause as applicable and binding. | Steiner's position is that the clause should be enforced as controlling venue. | Court erred; enforceability supports dismissal/remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corsec, S.L. v. VMC Intern. Franchising, LLC, 909 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (forum clauses presumptively valid; burden to show grave difficulty)
- Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So.2d 437 (Fla.1986) (forum clause enforcement considerations; gravamen of inconvenience)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989) (basis for forum non conveniens and related venue analysis)
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996) (general principles of forum and venue considerations)
- Barclays Bank, PLC v. Munoz, 890 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (forum selection clause impact on venue and dismissal)
- Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.2012) (federal treatment of venue challenges for forum clauses)
- Horberg v. Kerzner International Hotels Ltd., 744 F.Supp.2d 1284 (S.D.Fla.2007) (reason for extrinsic inquiry in venue challenges)
- Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 426 F.Supp.2d 1296 (S.D.Fla.2006) (extrinsic evidence in venue disputes)