Jurisdiction: Fourth District Court of Appeal, Florida
Case No.: 4D2024-3266
Lower Tribunal Case No.: CACE23006550
Date: July 16, 2025
Lower Court: Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Judge Fabienne E. Fahnestock
When Convenience Counts: Why Venue Matters in Insurance Litigation
In the world of insurance litigation, jurisdiction and venue aren’t just technicalities—they can impact case outcomes, witness availability, and costs for all parties involved. The case of Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Walden highlights how Florida courts evaluate whether a lawsuit belongs in one county over another, and just how seriously they take convenience and justice when deciding where a case should be tried.
At the heart of this dispute was a venue challenge by Progressive, who argued that the entire case—stemming from a 2020 auto accident—had no connection to Broward County, where it was filed. According to the insurer, all key events, witnesses, and parties were tied to Polk County. The trial court disagreed. But on appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal sided with Progressive and reversed the lower court’s decision, ordering the case transferred to Polk County.
The Core Issue: Where Should the Lawsuit Be Heard?
Brooke Walden filed suit in Broward County for injuries from an accident allegedly caused by Ralph Erickson French, an underinsured motorist. Her suit named both French and her own insurer, Progressive, under an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claim.
Progressive quickly moved to transfer the case to Polk County, citing three key reasons under Florida Statutes §47.122:
- Convenience of the Witnesses – All essential witnesses, including Walden, French, and her medical providers, resided in Polk County.
- Convenience of the Parties – Both the plaintiff and the at-fault driver were Polk County residents.
- Interest of Justice – The crash happened in Polk County. Broward had no direct ties to the incident other than Progressive having an agent there.
Progressive supported the motion with an affidavit from its claims manager detailing all of the above.
The Trial Court’s Reasoning—and the Pushback
At hearing, Walden’s counsel argued that Progressive hadn’t gone far enough. Specifically, they claimed the affidavit was flawed because it didn’t include sworn statements from each individual witness saying they’d be personally inconvenienced if the case stayed in Broward. The trial judge agreed, stating that she could not rule on inconvenience based solely on a corporate representative’s statements.
But the appellate court saw things differently.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis: Shifting the Burden
Under Florida law, once a defendant challenges venue with an affidavit, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the original venue is appropriate. In this case, the court found that Progressive met its initial burden through the claims manager’s affidavit, and Walden failed to counter with any evidence of her own.
The court emphasized that witness affidavits are not required to prove inconvenience. The insurer’s summary of the facts—showing that none of the parties or events had meaningful ties to Broward County—was enough. As the court noted, requiring individualized affidavits from every witness would set an unnecessarily high bar that doesn’t exist in Florida’s statutory scheme.
Why This Ruling Matters
The ruling in this case reaffirms a few critical principles of venue law in Florida:
- Plaintiffs cannot choose any county they wish; venue must have a logical and factual basis.
- When defendants present valid evidence justifying a venue change, plaintiffs must rebut it or risk losing their venue selection.
- Convenience of the witnesses is paramount, and courts favor live testimony from local witnesses.
- Zoom or remote testimony doesn’t eliminate the importance of venue based on proximity and community connection.
Most importantly, the court rejected the idea that venue should be locked in simply because a corporate defendant does business in a county, absent any other connection to the events in question.
Today’s Insight
“The good lawyer is not the man who has an eye to every side and angle of contingency, and qualifies all his qualifications, but who throws himself on your part so heartily, that he can get you out of a scrape.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson