Civil Practice – Venue – Insurance – S.C. Event Cancellation – Connecticut Policy

Listen to this article

HDMG Entertainment, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-037-17, 13 pp.) (R. Bryan Harwell, J.) 4:16-cv-01626; D.S.C.

Holding: Even though plaintiff is headquartered in Connecticut, and even though there is a dispute as to whether South Carolina or Connecticut law applies to the parties’ event-cancellation insurance policy, since (1) the events leading up to the cancellation of the 2015 Swamp Fox Biker Bash occurred in South Carolina; (2) plaintiff’s president, who is admittedly a Connecticut resident, frequently travels to South Carolina and has a majority ownership interest in a real estate holding company that holds title to the Marion property where the Biker Bash was to be held; (3) the policy does not contain a choice of law provision or a forum selection clause, and defendant agreed therein to “submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States”; and (4) defendant has made no showing that this court could not correctly apply Connecticut law, plaintiff’s chosen venue is entitled to substantial weight.

The court denies defendant’s motion to transfer venue to Connecticut.

With regard to the convenience of witnesses, defendant has only identified one witness –a former employee – whose testimony is allegedly necessary to its defense and who may have to travel to South Carolina from Massachusetts. Moreover, defendant has not explained why this witness’s alleged testimony could not be submitted by deposition.

In comparison, plaintiff has identified three Connecticut witnesses who have indicated they are not averse to traveling to South Carolina for this case. Plaintiff has also identified a potential witness in California for whom travel to South Carolina would be no more inconvenient than travel to Connecticut. Defendant has not demonstrated that the convenience factors weigh in favor of transfer.

Defendant’s only argument relating to the interest of justice is that South Carolina law does not apply. The court declines at this time to resolve whether South Carolina or Connecticut law applies. Even if Connecticut law applies, defendant has not shown that this court could not correctly apply Connecticut law or that Connecticut law is so unsettled that a Connecticut court should resolve this case.

Motion denied.