When Florida lawmakers enacted § 47.122 allowing venue transfers “for the convenience of parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice,” they couldn’t have anticipated a world where trials could be conducted from the comfort of your own home. They certainly couldn’t have anticipated that a cat lawyer would make an appearance[1] ready to argue his motion.
In the aftermath of COVID-19 and the subsequent normalization of Zoom and other virtual court technologies, that statute’s practical application has been altered.
Florida Statute § 47.122 gives trial courts the discretion to transfer a civil case if it serves the convenience of the parties, the convenience of witnesses, or in the interest of justice. Historically, this statute aimed to reduce logistical burdens, especially when key witnesses or documents were located far from the forum county. However, with the rise of remote litigation, the argument for venue inconvenience has become less compelling.
This shift reflects broader changes in the legal landscape, where technology has streamlined court proceedings. While physical location still matters in some cases, courts may now weigh factors differently when deciding whether to transfer a case
Florida’s PIP litigation is particularly venue-sensitive. Plaintiffs frequently choose a venue they perceive as favorable. Florida Statute § 47.122 serves as a check on venue shopping by challenging venue choices not directly tied to the facts. Often, Plaintiffs file cases without taking into consideration where the accident occurred, where the treatment was done, or where the injured/ insured party resides. However, with the potential witnesses (providers, adjusters, corporate reps, and insureds) now able to appear via Zoom, the once-valid inconvenience argument is facing new skepticism from trial courts.
Although the Florida Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed Zoom’s effect on § 47.122, trial courts are factoring virtual accessibility into their decisions. Courts are noting that “interest of justice” is not merely about geography; it includes access to a forum that allows prompt and fair adjudication, which may favor a plaintiff’s chosen venue.
We see courts considering technology as far back as 2014. In Fla. High. Patrol v. Bejarano, 137 So. 3d 619, 621-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), the First District Court of Appeal refuses to compel a plaintiff’s in-person deposition. The Court ruled the deposition was not “completely prohibitive” for the plaintiff’s time, or cost-wise, the court concluded that accommodating his request for a video conference deposition wasn’t an abuse of discretion. Id. at 622. The court also noted no prejudice on the party seeking to compel the in-person deposition, stating it could still conduct the deposition “from its choice of locale, using a video conferencing company of its own choosing.” Id. at 621. While this case did not address venue, we do see that even pre-pandemic Courts were thinking about technology and are taking it into consideration when determining convenience.
In recent years, we have seen Florida Courts expect more evidence from insurance when it comes to venue transfer on the basis of convenience. As illustrated in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota Ins. Co., 345 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision to transfer venue, stating that the insurer failed to establish basis to transfer venue for convenience of its witness, and transfer of venue not necessarily in the interest of justice. The Court further found that the insurer submitted no affidavit or other evidence that its insured still resides in Alachua County; nor did it show, at all, how he would be inconvenienced if venue remained in Seminole County.
Also, in Lapine Family Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3207 FLWSUPP (Fla. Miami-Dade Co. Ct. Sept. 4, 2024), we see the opposite outcome but a similar scrutiny applied. Here the Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue to Brevard County, citing several key factors, such as the plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Brevard County, the medical services in question were rendered in and payment was due in Brevard County, the insured resides in Brevard County, the plaintiff does not have an office or officers in Miami-Dade County and no treatment took place in Miami-Dade County. The insurer provided an affidavit as well as additional evidence to support their position. This Court ruled on a similar issue in Dr. J Comerford, P.A., v. First Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc., 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 321a (Fla. Miami-Dade Co. 2023) (Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Transfer Venue).
These decisions reflect a growing judicial recognition that technology may further mitigate traditional venue concerns, reinforcing the expectation that parties must present compelling evidence to justify relocation.
As virtual litigation becomes entrenched, courts may increasingly interpret “convenience” under § 47.122 through a digital lens. Just as e-filing reshaped procedural norms a decade ago, Zoom is now forcing a redefinition of what it means to be “inconvenienced” by venue.
While the statute remains unchanged, its application is evolving, and both sides of the bar must adapt their strategies accordingly.
In sum, Zoom has not only changed how we litigate it has also changed where we litigate. Florida Statute § 47.122 was designed for an analog world. As virtual proceedings become the norm, courts and litigators must reconsider what constitutes “convenience” in a system that now fits in your pocket.
[1]‘I’m not a cat’: Lawyer gets stuck on Zoom kitten filter during court case