Michael Garrison and Janet Garrison v. Elesha Ford and United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Company , 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 107 ( 2016 )

FILED
Apr 13 2016, 10:29 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Scott A. Faultless Christine Riesner Bond
Craig Kelley & Faultless LLC McNeely Stephenson
Indianapolis, Indiana Shelbyville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Garrison and Janet April 13, 2016
Garrison, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Plaintiffs, 49A05-1512-CT-02120
Appeal from the Marion Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Gary L. Miller,
Elesha Ford and United Farm Judge
Family Mutual Insurance Trial Court Cause No.
Company, 49D03-1510-CT-033250
Appellees-Defendants
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-CT-02120 | April 13, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Michael and Janet Garrison (“the Garrisons”) bring an interlocutory appeal as
of right,1 challenging a change of venue from Marion County to Johnson
County of their complaint against Elesha Ford (“Ford”) for personal injury and
property damages and against United Farm Family Mutual Insurance
Company (“Farm Bureau”) in relation to underinsured motorist coverage. The
Garrisons present the sole issue of whether their complaint, filed in the county
where defendant Farm Bureau maintains its resident agent, was subject to a
change of venue to another county of preferred venue. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 29, 2014, the Garrisons and Ford were involved in a motor
vehicle collision which occurred in Johnson County. At that time, the
Garrisons had underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to a policy with Farm
Bureau. On September 30, 2015, the Garrisons filed in Marion County a
complaint naming Ford and Farm Bureau as defendants. The complaint and
summons were served upon Farm Bureau at the Marion County address of its
registered agent.
1
Indiana Trial Rule 75(E) provides in relevant part: “An order transferring or refusing to transfer a case
under this rule shall be an interlocutory order appealable pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(A)(8).” Indiana
Appellate Rule 14(A)(8) provides that “transferring or refusing to transfer a case under Trial Rule 75” is
appealable as of right by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk within thirty days after the notation of the
interlocutory order in the Chronological Case Summary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-CT-02120 | April 13, 2016 Page 2 of 6
[3] Farm Bureau filed an Indiana Trial Rule 75(A) motion to transfer venue to
Johnson County, alleging that Johnson County was a county of preferred venue
because Ford was a Johnson County resident and the collision occurred in that
county.2 The Garrisons opposed the transfer on grounds that the action had
been filed in a county of preferred venue, specifically, the county where Farm
Bureau has its principal office.
[4] On November 9, 2015, the Marion County Superior Court granted the motion
to transfer venue. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Trial Rule 75 governs venue requirements in Indiana. Each of its ten
subsections sets forth criteria establishing “preferred venue.” American Family
Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 857 N.E.2d 971, 973-74 (Ind. 2006). A case or
complaint may be filed in any Indiana county; however, if the complaint is not
filed in a preferred venue, the court is required to transfer the case to a preferred
venue upon the proper request from a party. Id. at 974 (citing T.R. 75(A)). The
rule does not create a priority among the subsections establishing preferred
venue; thus, if the complaint is filed in a preferred venue, the trial court has no
2
The motion included the averment that “Plaintiffs have filed this action in their county of residence, which
can only be considered a preferred venue if the case is not subject to any of the requirements of Rule 7(A)(1)-
(9) of [sic] if the defendants are nonresident individuals or organizations with principal places of business
located outside of the state.” (App. at 24-25.) Farm Bureau did not therein advise the trial court that it
maintained a registered agent in Marion County.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-CT-02120 | April 13, 2016 Page 3 of 6
authority to transfer the case based solely on preferred venue in one or more
counties. Id.
[6] Subsection (4) of the rule establishes preferred venue in the county where the
principal office of a defendant organization is located. Id. Accordingly, if a
case is filed in the county where the principal office of a defendant organization
is located, transfer to another county on grounds of preferred venue would be
inappropriate. Id. The location where a corporation maintains a registered
agent is its principal office. See id. at 972 (holding that “the term ‘principal
office’ as used in subsections (4) and (10) of Trial Rule 75(A) refers to a
domestic or foreign corporation’s registered office in Indiana.”)
[7] Factual findings linked to a ruling on a Rule 75(A) motion are reviewed under a
clearly erroneous standard while rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Id. at
973. If factual determinations are based on a paper record, they are also
reviewed de novo. Id.
[8] Here, there is no factual dispute as to whether Farm Bureau maintained its
registered agent in Marion County. Farm Bureau simply insists that a special
rule should apply to vehicular collisions, such that the preferred venue of the
accident location would trump another preferred venue. See T.R. 75(A)(3).3
According to Farm Bureau:
3
Subsection (3) is a “motor-vehicle-specific rule” that gives preferred venue status to the location of motor
vehicle accidents. R & D Transport, Inc. v. A.H., 859 N.E.2d 332, 336 (Ind. 2006).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-CT-02120 | April 13, 2016 Page 4 of 6
it is reasonable for an uninsured motorist carrier to expect a
motor vehicle accident case to be venued in the county where the
accident occurred because that is the location of the witnesses,
location of police who investigated and where jury views are
more easily arranged.
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (citing Meridian Mut. Ins. v. Harter, 671 N.E.2d 861, 863
(Ind. 1996). In Meridian, the Court observed that insurers may become
involved in litigation “wherever their insureds’ vehicles take them” and
acknowledged that it was “not unreasonable” for an underinsured motorist
issue to go forward where the accident occurred.” Id.
[9] At the same time, however, the Court observed that there may be more than
one county of preferred venue and definitively stated:
Only if the court in which the action is commenced is not in a
county of preferred venue, may the case be transferred to a court
of preferred venue meeting the criteria listed in T.R. 75(A)(1)-(9).
If plaintiffs properly filed their complaint in a county of preferred
venue, the trial court had no authority to transfer the case to a
different county on preferred venue grounds.
Id. (internal citations omitted). Cf. Salsbery Pork Producers, Inc. v. Booth, 967
N.E.2d 1, 6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (concluding that, where there is a single
county of preferred venue after dismissal of one party, and the case was not
filed there, it is subject to transfer).
[10] We do not employ a separate rule for the sake of convenience, as Farm Bureau
suggests. “The balance of convenience, even if it were an explicit factor, is not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-CT-02120 | April 13, 2016 Page 5 of 6
sufficient to disturb the plaintiffs’ selection of a forum that meets preferred
venue requirements.” Meridian Mut. Ins., 671 N.E.2d at 864. We are obligated
to follow precedents established by the Indiana Supreme Court. Patton v. State,
507 N.E.2d 624, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), trans. denied. We hold that the
Marion County court had no authority to transfer the case to a different county.
Conclusion
[11] Marion County, where the Garrisons filed their complaint, is a preferred venue.
As such, the Marion County Superior Court erred in granting the motion for a
change of venue.
[12] Reversed and remanded.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-CT-02120 | April 13, 2016 Page 6 of 6