Vinson v. Allstate

• Decision Date: 19 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 70756,70756
• Citation: 144 Ill.2d 306,579 N.E.2d 857,162 Ill.Dec. 43
• Parties: , 162 Ill.Dec. 43 Ronnie VINSON et al., Appellees, v. ALLSTATE, a Corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 857

579 N.E.2d 857

144 Ill.2d 306, 162 Ill.Dec. 43

Ronnie VINSON et al., Appellees, v. ALLSTATE, a Corporation, Appellant.

No. 70756.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 19, 1991.

Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, Michael J. Pitzer, St. Louis, Mo., for Allstate.

Michael P. O'Shea, Jr., Cairo, for Ronnie Vinson.

Justice MORAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Ronnie Vinson and JoAnn Busby, brought an action against defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), in the circuit court of Alexander County, seeking indemnification for the loss of their home, and for attorney fees attributed to Allstate's alleged delay in settling their insurance claim. Allstate filed a motion to dismiss based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The circuit court denied the motion and Allstate filed a petition for leave to appeal in the appellate court which was also denied (107 Ill.2d R. 306). This court allowed Allstate's petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).

The sole issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in denying Allstate's forum non conveniens motion.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that they owned a single-family dwelling that was completely destroyed by a fire on May 1, 1989. Plaintiffs' stated that, at the time of the fire, they had a homeowners insurance policy issued by Allstate and that they filed a claim under the policy following the fire. Allstate later denied the claim, which the plaintiffs' maintain contravened the terms of the homeowners policy.

Allstate filed a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens on the basis that the dispute on the homeowners policy did not have any factual connection with Alexander County, or the State of Illinois, for the following reasons: the insured premises was located in the State of Missouri; all known occurrence witnesses reside in Missouri; the plaintiffs were residents of Missouri at the time the policy was executed; the insurance policy was executed in Missouri; the insurance policy must be interpreted under Missouri law; and under the principles of convenience and fairness to the parties and occurrence witnesses, the lawsuit should be brought in the State of Missouri.

The circuit court denied Allstate's motion after it balanced the private and public interest factors it considered pertinent to the case. The court found Alexander County to be a convenient and appropriate forum because: (1) Allstate does business in the county; (2) Allstate is a corporate resident of the State; (3) there was no showing as to the unavailability of witnesses; (4) no problems were shown in obtaining the attendance of witnesses; and (5) the instant case will not be unduly delayed given the case load in Alexander County.

The question for this court is whether the circuit court's denial of Allstate's forum non conveniens motion was an abuse of discretion. A trial court's ruling will not be reversed on review unless it can be shown that the court abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors. Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Division of Textron, Inc. (1986), 113 Ill.2d 112, 118, 100 Ill.Dec. 567, 497 N.E.2d 745; Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc. (1990), 136 Ill.2d 101, 106, 143 Ill.Dec. 274, 554 N.E.2d 209.

"Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that is founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration." (Adkins v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co. (1973), 54 Ill.2d 511, 514, 301 N.E.2d 729.) According to this equitable doctrine, a court which has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter involved may nevertheless decline jurisdiction of a case when it is apparent that trial in another forum with jurisdiction over the parties would be more convenient and would better serve the ends of justice. (Adkins, 54 Ill.2d at 514, 301 N.E.2d 729; Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. (1987), 116 Ill.2d 217, 223, 107 Ill.Dec. 236, 506 N.E.2d 1291; Boner v. Peabody Coal Co. (1991), 142 Ill.2d 523, 527, 154 Ill.Dec. 662, 568 N.E.2d 883.) This common law doctrine is applicable on an interstate basis and a case can be dismissed where the "case * * * has no practical connection to the forum." Torres v. Walsh (1983), 98 Ill.2d 338, 348, 74 Ill.Dec. 880, 456 N.E.2d 601.

In determining whether to dismiss a case under this doctrine, the private interests affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interests affecting the administration of the courts must be balanced by the court. (Bland, 116 Ill.2d at 223-24, 107 Ill.Dec. 236, 506 N.E.2d 1291; Boner, 142 Ill.2d at 528, 154 Ill.Dec. 662, 568 N.E.2d 883.) The litigants' private interests include factors such as the " 'relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing[,] witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.' " Bland, 116 Ill.2d at 224, 107 Ill.Dec. 236, 506 N.E.2d 1291, quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1062.

The public interest factors relevant here are as follows: the "[a]dministrative difficulties [that] follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin[;] [j]ury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation"; and "[t]here is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1062-63.

This court in balancing the factors outlined above must also take into consideration the principle that "unless those factors strongly favor the defendant, then the plaintiff should be allowed to exercise his choice in deciding in what forum to bring the case when venue is proper." (Torres, 98 Ill.2d at 351, 74 Ill.Dec. 880, 456 N.E.2d 601.) The record does not show that the plaintiffs in the instant case are residents of Alexander County and, consequently, their choice of forum is entitled to less deference. Bland, 116 Ill.2d at 227-28, 107 Ill.Dec. 236, 506 N.E.2d 1291; Boner, 142 Ill.2d at 529, 154 Ill.Dec. 662, 568 N.E.2d 883.

After examining the record before us, we find that Allstate is an Illinois corporation that does business within Alexander County. Because it is assumed on a forum non conveniens motion that the court has...