Ex Parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv. Inc.
Decision Date | 04 March 2011 |
Docket Number | 1091720. |
Citation | 68 So.3d 823 |
Parties | Ex parte NAWAS INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE, INC., and George Khoury.(In re Michael Kelley and Jackie Kelleyv.Nawas International Travel Service, Inc., and George Khoury). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles C. Simpson III and Kimberly L. Bell of Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris, L.L.C., Mobile, for petitioners.
Thomas T. Gallion III and Michael W. Kelley II of Haskell Slaughter Young & Gallion, LLC, Montgomery, for respondents.MURDOCK, Justice.
Nawas International Travel Service, Inc. (“Nawas”), a business incorporated in New York and having its principal offices in Connecticut, and its executive vice president George Khoury, a Connecticut resident, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs Michael Kelley and Jackie Kelley, who are Alabama residents, on the basis of an outbound forum-selection clause. We grant the petition.
Nawas is an international travel-service company that advertises itself as offering “quality Christian tours since 1949.” Through members of their church, First Baptist Church Montgomery, the Kelleys heard about a trip to Israel being offered by Nawas, described as a tour of “the Holy Land,” that would take place between February 21 and March 2, 2009. The Kelleys requested a brochure from Nawas concerning the trip, and Nawas provided them with a brochure that contained a description of the excursion and a reservation form with terms and conditions.1 The “General Conditions” portion of the reservation form contains a statement in bold print that provides as follows: The Kelleys returned a completed reservation form with payment for the trip.
The tour group, including the Kelleys, embarked on the trip as planned on February 21, 2009, with a transatlantic flight from Atlanta, Georgia, to Tel Aviv, Israel. The main activity scheduled for February 24, 2009, was a boat ride across the Sea of Galilee. Nawas had contracted with Kinnereth Sailing Company, Ltd. (“Kinnereth”), to conduct the boat tour. The Kelleys allege that during the boat ride the Kinnereth employees responsible for steering the boat failed to pay attention to the direction of the boat, which resulted in the boat striking rocks near the shoreline. The force of the crash caused Mr. Kelley to be thrown against a wall of the boat on which was a sharp metal hook. Mr. Kelley's head struck the hook, cutting him below the temple, in front of his right ear, and down his face to his jaw. According to the Kelleys, the injury produced profuse bleeding from the gash on Mr. Kelley's face, and he sustained a concussion that caused blurred vision and loss of memory. Mr. Kelley received medical treatment for his injuries at two different hospitals in Israel.
After Mr. Kelley had received treatment for his injuries, the Kelleys returned to the tour, though they allege they were unable to enjoy any of it because of Mr. Kelley's injuries. Sometime after the incident but before the tour ended, George Khoury telephoned the Kelleys from his office in Connecticut to express his concern for them. The Kelleys allege that Khoury represented that Nawas would take care of any expenses the Kelleys incurred as a result of the accident. The Kelleys also allege that when Olga Nawas, the head of the Nawas office in Jerusalem, stopped by to check on Mr. Kelley, she stated that Nawas would take care of any expenses the Kelleys sustained as a result of Mr. Kelley's injuries.
On May 13, 2010, the Kelleys filed a complaint in the Montgomery Circuit Court against Nawas, Khoury, and Kinnereth, alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, negligence and/or wantonness, fraud, and the tort of outrage, and, as to Nawas and Khoury, negligent hiring, selection, or retention of a service provider. On June 21, 2010, defendants Nawas and Khoury filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the forum-selection clause, which states that any action against Nawas must be filed in Fairfield County, Connecticut. Following a response from the Kelleys and a hearing on the motion, the Montgomery Circuit Court on August 4, 2010, entered an order denying the motion to dismiss filed by Nawas and Khoury. The circuit court did not explain its reasons for its ruling.
On September 14, 2010, Nawas and Khoury filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus addressing the Montgomery Circuit Court's August 4, 2010, order. Subsequently, the Kelleys obtained service on Kinnereth in Israel; Kinnereth, in turn, filed its own motion to dismiss on October 13, 2010. On November 4, 2010, the circuit court granted Kinnereth's motion to dismiss, thus excusing it from the Kelleys' action.
Nawas and Khoury contend that the circuit court should have enforced the forum-selection clause because the Kelleys contractually agreed to it as part of the terms and conditions of the tour trip provided by Nawas. They argue that the Kelleys did not offer a defense that counsels in favor of nonenforcement of the clause.
This Court has stated that
“ ”
Ex parte Soprema, Inc., 949 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.2006) (quoting Ex parte D.M. White Constr. Co., 806 So.2d at 372).
The Kelleys did not contend before the circuit court—nor do they argue before this Court—that enforcement of the subject forum-selection clause would be unfair because the clause was the result of fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power. Instead, they contend that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable on the basis that the selected forum—Fairfield County, Connecticut—would be seriously inconvenient.
“ ”
Ex parte Rymer, 860 So.2d 339, 342–43 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Northern Capital Res. Corp., 751 So.2d 12, 15 (Ala.1999)).
We note preliminarily (1) that Nawas is a business entity while the Kelleys are not, (2) that the subject matter of the contract is not such as to be a significant factor in determining whether the outbound forum-selection clause should be enforced, (3) that the “chosen forum” has “inherent advantages” for one party but not for the other, and (4) that the parties should have been able to understand the agreement as it was written. As to the fifth factor listed in Rymer, we note that when the Kelleys decided to travel to Israel, they took the risk that one of them might be injured in an unexpected, tortious incident and the concomitant risk that, to the extent this might occur at the hand of an Israel-based tortfeasor, they would have to seek relief from that tortfeasor in Israel. That fact has not changed since the Kelleys entered into the agreement with Nawas. As to the risk that any incident occurring in Israel might give rise to a claim by the Kelleys against Nawas and Khoury, the Kelleys agreed in advance that any such claim would have to be pursued in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cullman Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United Propane Gas, Inc. (Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc.)
...together, should in a particular case give a clear indication whether the chosen forum is reasonable." ’ " Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So.3d 823, 827 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Ex parte Rymer, 860 So.2d 339, 342–43 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Ex parte Northern Capital Res. Corp.,......
-
Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. JRD Contracting, Inc. (Ex parte Int'l Paper Co.)
...together, should in a particular case give a clear indication whether the chosen forum is reasonable." ’ " Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So.3d 823, 827 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Ex parte Rymer, 860 So.2d 339, 343 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Ex parte Northern Capital Res. Corp., 75......
-
Cullman Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United Propane Gas, Inc. (In re United Propane Gas, Inc.)
...should in a particular case give a clear indication whether the chosen forum is reasonable."'"Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823, 827 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Ex parte Rymer, 860 So. 2d 339, 342-43 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Ex parte Northern Capital Res. Corp., 751 So. 2d......
-
Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. JRD Contracting, Inc. (In re Int'l Paper Co.)
...should in a particular case give a clear indication whether the chosen forum is reasonable."'"Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823, 827 (Ala. 2011)(quoting Ex parte Rymer, 860 So. 2d 339, 343 (Ala.Page 13 2003), quoting in turn Ex parte Northern Capital Res. Corp., 751 So.......
-
The Appellate Corner
...power; (2) enforcement of the clause was not seriously inconvenient under the five-factor test of Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823, 827 (Ala. 2011); (3) requirement that witnesses would have to travel to Tennessee did not work serious inconvenience; (4) although the requirement......