author: PARKER, Justice.

text:
    EX PARTE MIDSOUTH PAVING, INC.
    (In re: Barbara M. Hodge, as administratrix of the Estate of Katie-Elizabeth Hope Vann, and Sue Davis, as parent and next friend of Valorie Eicher, a minor, Tristan Eicher, a minor, and Cody Ballinger, a minor v. Rennie D. Jackson et al.)
    Ex parte Rennie D. Jackson
    (In re: Barbara M. Hodge, as administratrix of the Estate of Katie-Elizabeth Hope Vann, and Sue Davis, as parent and next friend of Valorie Eicher, a minor, Tristan Eicher, a minor, and Cody Ballinger, a minor v. Rennie D. Jackson et al.)
    Ex parte United Services Automobile Association
    (In re: Barbara M. Hodge, as administratrix of the Estate of Katie-Elizabeth Hope Vann, and Sue Davis, as parent and next friend of Valorie Eicher, a minor, Tristan Eicher, a minor, and Cody Ballinger, a minor v. Rennie D. Jackson et al.)
    Ex parte Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., and Gelco Corporation
    (In re: Barbara M. Hodge, as administratrix of the Estate of Katie-Elizabeth Hope Vann, and Sue Davis, as parent and next friend of Valorie Eicher, a minor, Tristan Eicher, a minor, and Cody Ballinger, a minor v. Rennie D. Jackson et al.)
    1160504 1160505 1160517 1160563
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    September 1, 2017
    Clark Summerford and Joseph T. Cox III of Zeanah, Hust, Summerford, Williamson & Cox, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner Midsouth Paving, Inc.
    A. Joe Peddy, Clarence Rivers IV, and Murray S. Flint of Smith, Spires, Peddy, Hamilton & Coleman, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Rennie D. Jackson.
    J. Michael Bowling and Jeffrey E. Friedman, Jr., of Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner United Services Automobile Association.
    H.C. Ireland III and Keith J. Pflaum of Porterfield, Harper, Mills, Motlow & Ireland, P.A., Birmingham, for petitioners Schaeffler Group, USA, Inc., and Gelco Corporation.
    Erby J. Fischer and Victoria L. Dye of Fischer & Associates, LLC, Birmingham; Thomas H. Boggs, Jr., Woodford W. Dinning, Jr., and Alexander F. Braswell of Lloyd & Dinning, LLC, Demopolis; Alexander W. Jones, Jr., of Pritchard, McCall & Jones, LLC, Birmingham; and Robert H. Turner, Sr., of Turner, Turner & Bryant, Marion, for respondents.
   PARKER, Justice.

Midsouth Paving, Inc. ("Midsouth"), Rennie D. Jackson, United Services Automobile Association ("USAA"), and Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. ("Schaeffler"), and Gelco Corporation ("Gelco") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the defendants") separately petition this Court for writs of mandamus directing the Hale Circuit Court to vacate its order denying the defendants' motions for a change of venue and to enter an order transferring the action filed against the defendants by Barbara M. Hodge, as the administratrix of the estate of Katie-Elizabeth Hope Vann, and Sue Davis, as parent and next friend of Valorie Eicher, a minor, Tristan Eicher, a minor, and Cody Ballinger, a minor (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs"), to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. We grant the petitions and issue the writs.

Facts and Procedural History

On December 6, 2015, Valorie Eicher, a resident of Hale County, was driving a vehicle north on Interstate 59 through Tuscaloosa County. Katie-Elizabeth Hope Vann, Tristan Eicher, and Cody Ballinger, all also residents of Hale County, were passengers in the vehicle Valorie was driving. Jackson, an employee of Schaeffler and a resident of Tuscaloosa County, was also driving a vehicle, owned by Gelco, north on Interstate 59 in the lane next to the vehicle being driven by Valorie.

Jackson made an improper lane change, which forced Valorie to drive her vehicle partially off the interstate. Valorie lost control of her vehicle as she attempted to drive the vehicle back onto the interstate. Ultimately, the vehicle Valorie was driving overturned and rolled approximately two and one-half times, ejecting all the occupants from the vehicle. All the occupants in the vehicle driven by Valorie sustained injuries; Vann died at the scene of the accident as a result of the injuries she incurred. Deandra Bland, a Mississippi resident, witnessed the accident.

Valorie, Tristan, and Ballinger were transported from the scene of the accident to DCH Regional Medical Center, which is located in Tuscaloosa County, by NorthStar EMS, Inc. ("NorthStar"), which has its principal place of business in Tuscaloosa County. Bradley Bible, Susan Gault, and Tyler Kelley, employees of NorthStar, responded to the scene of the accident and helped in transporting Valorie, Tristan, and Ballinger to DCH Regional Medical Center; all live and work in Tuscaloosa County. Vann's body was transported to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences' morgue, which is located in Tuscaloosa County.

Orlander Marbury and Jason Vice, Alabama State Troopers employed by the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency ("ALEA"), were two of the officers who investigated the accident. Vice's affidavit testimony indicates that he lives in Tuscaloosa County. Marbury's and Vice's affidavits state that "[a]ll of the State Troopers that investigated this accident are based out of the ALEA Post located in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama." Jamaine Isaac, a supervisor at the Tuscaloosa County ALEA post, indicated in his affidavit testimony that the State Troopers stationed at the Tuscaloosa County ALEA post "are assigned to cover and investigate incidents and accidents in several counties." The parties have not directed this Court's attention to any evidence indicating that the State Troopers stationed at the Tuscaloosa County ALEA post do any work in Hale County.

At the time of the accident, Midsouth was performing construction work in an area on Interstate 59 in Tuscaloosa County that encompassed the scene of the accident. Michael Patterson and Bret Thornton are employed by Midsouth; they were the managers of the Midsouth construction project in Tuscaloosa County. Patterson resides in Tuscaloosa County. Patterson's and Thornton's affidavits state that "[a]ll physical evidence [they are] aware of relating to this accident is located in Tuscaloosa County."

Midsouth, USAA, and Schaeffler also conducted business in Hale County unrelated to the work Midsouth was conducting in Tuscaloosa County at the scene of the accident.

On May 15, 2016, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in the Hale Circuit Court. Subsequently, all the defendants filed motions for a change of venue, arguing that the doctrine of forum non conveniens necessitated the transfer of the case from the Hale Circuit Court to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. On September 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' motions for a change of venue.

On February 22, 2017, the Hale Circuit Court entered the following order denying the defendants' motions for a change of venue:

"This matter comes before the court on the various motions to transfer this case from the Circuit Court of Hale County, Alabama, to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. No party has raised or challenged the propriety of venue in Hale County, and the court finds that Hale County, Alabama, is a proper venue for this case. The only issue raised for consideration within the pending motions is a transfer of venue pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
"The ... defendants filed separate motions to transfer venue on forum non conveniens grounds, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated response to those motions on September 20, 2016. Defendant Mid-South Paving filed a motion to strike addressing various evidentiary submissions filed with the plaintiffs' response brief. The plaintiffs were granted leave to respond to the motion to strike and filed their response and accompanying submissions on January 31, 2017. Upon consideration of those written submissions, as well as the oral arguments made to the court on the motions to transfer, the court finds that the defendants did not establish that Tuscaloosa County is significantly more convenient than Hale County for the litigation of this case, nor have the defendants established that the interests of justice warrant a transfer to Tuscaloosa County. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES the defendants' motions to transfer this matter to Tuscaloosa County on the grounds of forum non conveniens."

(Capitalization in original.)

Standard of Review

" 'The proper method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is to petition for the writ of mandamus. Lawler Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Tarver, 492 So.2d 297, 302 (Ala. 1986). "Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995). "When we consider a mandamus petition relating to a venue ruling, our scope of review is to determine if the trial court [exceeded] its discretion, i.e., whether it exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Id. Our review is further limited to those facts that were before the trial court. Ex parte American Resources Ins. Co., 663 So.2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995).' "

Ex parte Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, LLC, 94 So.3d 371, 373 (Ala. 2012) (quoting Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788, 789 (Ala. 1998) ).

Discussion

The defendants argue that the Hale Circuit Court exceeded its discretion in denying their motions for a change of venue. The defendants argue that the action should be transferred to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court under Alabama's forum non conveniens statute, § 6-3-21.1(a), Ala. Code 1975.

Section 6-3-21.1(a) states, in pertinent part:

"With respect to civil actions filed in an appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein."

This Court explained the application of § 6-3-21.1(a) in Ex parte Tier 1 Trucking, LLC, 222 So.3d 1107, 1112-13 (Ala. 2016):

"[C]oncerning whether an action should be transferred under § 6-3-21.1, this Court has stated:
" ' "A party moving for a transfer under § 6-3-21.1 has the initial burden of showing, among other things, one of two factors: (1) that the transfer is justified based on the convenience of either the parties or the witnesses, or (2) that the transfer is justified 'in the interest of justice.' " Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 539 (Ala. 2008). Although we review a ruling on a motion to transfer to determine whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting or denying the motion, id., where "the convenience of the parties and witnesses or the interest of justice would be best served by a transfer, § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975, compels the trial court to transfer the action to the alternative forum." Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala. 2008) (emphasis added).'
" Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d 570, 573 (Ala. 2011).
" ' "The purpose of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to 'prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and also to protect witnesses, litigants, and the public against unnecessary expense and inconvenience.' " Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So.2d 307, 312 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex parte New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 663 So.2d 952, 956 (Ala. 1995) ). We note that "litigation should be handled in the forum where the injury occurred" and that "one of the fundamental purposes of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to spare witnesses the unnecessary inconvenience associated with testifying in a distant forum." Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.2d 898, 904 (Ala. 2004).'
" Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d 509, 512 (Ala. 2008).
" ' "The 'interest of justice' prong of § 6-3-21.1 requires 'the transfer of the action from a county with little, if any, connection to the action, to the county with a strong connection to the action.' Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d [788,] 790 [ (Ala. 1998) ]. Therefore, 'in analyzing the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1, this Court focuses on whether the "nexus" or "connection" between the plaintiff's action and the original forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the plaintiff's forum with the action.' Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 911 (Ala. 2008). Additionally, this Court has held that 'litigation should be handled in the forum where the injury occurred.' Ex parte Fuller, 955 So.2d 414, 416 (Ala. 2006). Further, in examining whether it is in the interest of justice to transfer a case, we consider 'the burden of piling court services and resources upon the people of a county that is not affected by the case and ... the interest of the people of a county to have a case that arises in their county tried close to public view in their county.' Ex parte Smiths Water & Sewer Auth., 982 So.2d 484, 490 (Ala. 2007)." '
" Ex parte Quality Carriers, Inc., 183 So.3d 937, 942 (Ala. 2015) (quoting Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 540 (Ala. 2008) ).
" 'Although it is not a talisman, the fact that the injury occurred in the proposed transferee county is often assigned considerable weight in an interest-of-justice analysis. See Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745, 748 (Ala. 2010)
(" '[T]his Court has held that "litigation should be handled in the forum where the injury occurred." ' " (quoting Ex parte Indiana Mills, 10 So.3d at 540 )); Ex parte McKenzie Oil, Inc., 13 So.3d 346, 349 (Ala. 2008) (same).'
" Ex parte Wachovia, 77 So.3d at 573-74."

The defendants argue that this action should be transferred under either the convenience or the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1. However, the defendants' primary argument is that the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1 necessitates the transfer of this case from the Hale Circuit Court to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. In so arguing, the defendants rely primarily upon Ex parte Tier 1, supra.

The facts considered by this Court in Ex parte Tier 1 are remarkably similar to those presented in the present case. In Ex parte Tier 1, a vehicle driven by Jimmy Lee Mixon, a resident of Wilcox County, collided with a tractor-trailer owned by Tier 1 Trucking, LLC ("Tier 1"), and driven by a Tier 1 employee, who was a resident of Conecuh County; the accident occurred in Conecuh County. Mixon was transported by a company located in Conecuh County to a medical facility located in Conecuh County to receive medical treatment for the injuries he sustained in the accident. The accident was investigated by a local law-enforcement agency located in Conecuh County. Tier 1 conducted some business in Wilcox County, but its principal office was located in Florida.

Mixon and his wife sued Tier 1 and its employee in the Wilcox Circuit Court. Tier 1 and the employee filed a motion to transfer the action from the Wilcox Circuit Court to the Conecuh Circuit Court under § 6-3-21.1(a). The Wilcox Circuit Court denied the motion to transfer. Tier 1 and the employee then petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Wilcox Circuit Court to vacate its order denying the motion for a change of venue and to enter an order transferring the action to the Conecuh Circuit Court.

In granting Tier 1 and the employee's petition and issuing the requested writ, this Court provided the following commentary on Alabama law pertaining to the interest-of-justice prong:

"On multiple occasions, this Court has found that a venue where the accident occurred, where a party resides, and where other witnesses reside has a much stronger connection to the action than a venue where the only connection with the action is that a party resides there and a defendant does some business there. See, e.g., Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d 509, 513 (Ala. 2008) (requiring transfer of a personal-injury action for 'both the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice' from a venue where the plaintiff resided and where the defendant automobile-liability insurer had done some business to a venue where the accident occurred and where the alleged tortfeasor, the investigating officer, and all the other witnesses that had been identified resided); Ex parte Wayne Farms, LLC, 210 So.3d 586 (Ala. 2016) (holding that the interest of justice required transfer of a personal-injury action from a venue where an individual defendant resided and where the corporate defendant did some business to a venue where the accident occurred, where the plaintiffs resided, where most of the emergency personnel who responded to accident were located, where one plaintiff received medical treatment, and where all interactions and business transactions between the corporate defendant and the plaintiffs occurred); Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745 (Ala. 2010) (holding that the interest of justice required transfer of a personal-injury action from a venue where one of the defendants resided and where the corporate defendant 'may have some business connections' to a venue where the accident occurred, where the plaintiff resided, and where the emergency medical technician who responded to the accident resided).
"On one occasion, in Ex parte J & W Enterprises, 150 So.3d 190 (Ala. 2014), this Court held that, under the specific facts of that case, the interest-of-justice prong of the forum non conveniens statute did not warrant transfer to the venue where the accident occurred. However, in that particular case, unlike in the present case, none of the parties lived in the venue where the accident occurred, the injured plaintiff did not receive medical treatment in that venue, and no eyewitnesses were located in that venue. Furthermore, both defendants were located in the venue where the action was filed, and the plaintiff resided outside Alabama."

Ex parte Tier 1, 222 So.3d at 1113. This Court then provided the following analysis of the facts before it:

"In the present case, the only connections to Wilcox County are that [Mixon and his wife] reside there and that Tier 1 has conducted some business there that was not related to this action. The undisputed facts show that the accident occurred in Conecuh County, that one of the defendants resides in Conecuh County, and that law-enforcement personnel in Conecuh County carried out the investigation of the accident. Furthermore, there is evidence indicating that [Mixon] received medical treatment in Conecuh County. Under our prior decisions construing § 6-3-21.1, this Court gives great weight to the fact that the accident occurred in Conecuh County and to the fact that no material events occurred in Wilcox County. Further, other than [Mixon and his wife], no potential witnesses who reside in Wilcox County have been identified. ... Also, although the affidavit of the police officer who investigated the accident stated that it would not be inconvenient for him to travel to Wilcox County, he is employed by a local police department located in Conecuh County that is tasked with serving the people of Conecuh County, and his investigation occurred in Conecuh County."

222 So.3d at 1113-14. Based on the above analysis, this Court concluded:

"There is no reason to burden the people of Wilcox County with the use of their court services and other resources for a case that predominately affects another county, and we recognize the interest of the people of Conecuh County to have a case that arose in their county tried close to public view in their county. Wilcox County, with its weak connection to the case, should not be burdened with an action that arose in Conecuh County, with its strong connection to the case, simply because the plaintiffs reside in Wilcox County and the corporate defendant has done some business there. See Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, 58 So.3d at 750 (stating that '[t]his Court sees no need to burden Montgomery County, with its weak connection to the case, with an action that arose in Elmore County simply because the individual defendant resides in Montgomery County and the corporate defendant does some business there'). Therefore, under § 6-3-21.1, the trial court is compelled to transfer the case to Conecuh County. See, e.g., Ex parte Wachovia, 77 So.3d at 573."

222 So.3d at 1113-14.

The present case presents a similar factual scenario to the one presented in Ex parte Tier 1. Tuscaloosa County has a strong connection to this case. Most significantly, the accident, which resulted in Vann's death and injuries to Valorie, Tristan, and Ballinger, occurred in Tuscaloosa County. Vann's body was transported to a morgue located in Tuscaloosa County. Valorie, Tristan, and Ballinger received medical care in Tuscaloosa County for injuries sustained in the accident. The parties have not directed this Court's attention to any evidence indicating that Valorie, Tristan, or Ballinger received medical treatment in Hale County. The NorthStar medical workers who transported Valorie, Tristan, and Ballinger from the scene of the accident to DCH Regional Medical Center all live and work in Tuscaloosa County. NorthStar has its principal place of business in Tuscaloosa County. Although the officers who investigated the scene of the accident are employed by ALEA, a State agency, they are stationed at an ALEA post located in Tuscaloosa County. One of the investigating officers resides in Tuscaloosa County; the parties have not directed this Court's attention to any evidence indicating that any of the investigating officers reside in Hale County. Although some of the defendants have conducted business in Hale County, that business is unrelated to the facts of this case. One of Midsouth's managers over the Midsouth construction project that encompassed the scene of the accident resides in Tuscaloosa County and works in Tuscaloosa County daily.

Hale County has a weak connection to this case. Its only connections to this case are that the plaintiffs reside in Hale County and that some of the defendants have done business there unrelated to this case.

As stated in Ex parte Tier 1:

"There is no reason to burden the people of [Hale] County with the use of their court services and other resources for a case that predominately affects another county, and we recognize the interest of the people of [Tuscaloosa] County to have a case that arose in their county tried close to public view in their county. [Hale] County, with its weak connection to the case, should not be burdened with an action that arose in [Tuscaloosa] County, with its strong connection to the case, simply because the plaintiffs reside in [Hale] County and [some of] the ... defendant[s] ha[ve] done some business there."

222 So.3d at 1114. Accordingly, based on the reasoning and authorities set forth in Ex parte Tier 1, under § 6-3-21.1, the Hale Circuit Court is compelled to transfer the case to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.

We note that the plaintiffs argue that Ex parte First Family Financial Services, Inc., 718 So.2d 658 (Ala. 1998), prevents the Hale Circuit Court from transferring the case to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. The portion of Ex parte First Family relied upon by the plaintiffs states: " '[W]hen the trial judge determines that a plaintiff is guilty of "forum shopping" and that the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems, the statute provides that the trial court "shall" transfer the cause.' " 718 So.2d at 660 (quoting Ex parte Gauntt, 677 So.2d 204, 221 (Ala. 1996) (Maddox, J., dissenting)). The plaintiffs appear to argue that, in order to have the case transferred under the interest-of-justice prong, the defendants are required to demonstrate that the plaintiffs had engaged in forum shopping and "that litigation of this matter in Hale County would inappropriately or adversely affect Hale County's legal or administrative process." The plaintiffs argue that the defendants failed to demonstrate either.

However, in Ex parte First Tennessee Bank National Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 911 (Ala. 2008), this Court discounted the notion that a trial court's use of the interest-of-justice prong under § 6-3-21.1 first requires a finding that the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping. This Court stated:

"[N]othing in [Ex parte] First Family [Financial Services, Inc., 718 So. 2d 658 (Ala. 1998),] limits a trial court's use of the interest-of-justice prong under § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975, to instances in which the trial court determines that a plaintiff has engaged in forum shopping. Instead, it appears from our caselaw that in analyzing the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1, this Court focuses on whether the 'nexus' or 'connection' between the plaintiff's action and the original forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the plaintiff's forum with the action. See Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d [509,] 512 [ (Ala. 2008) ] (' "[T]he 'interest of justice' require[s] the transfer of the action from a county with little, if any, connection to the action, to the county with a strong connection to the action." ' (quoting [Ex parte] National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d [788,] 790 [ (Ala. 1998) ] ) ). See also Ex parte Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 725 So.2d 955, 957 (Ala. 1998) ('From what is before this Court, therefore, it appears that this case has no nexus with Lowndes County that would justify burdening that county with the trial of this case.'). In this case, [the defendant] moved the Jefferson Circuit Court to transfer the action under § 6-3-21.1 on the basis that the interest of justice warranted the transfer; thus, the court rightly applied the 'nexus' or 'connection' analysis.''

As did the Court in Ex parte First Tennessee Bank, we have applied the nexus or connection analysis and determined that the Hale Circuit Court exceeded its discretion in denying the defendants' request to transfer the action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. The plaintiffs' argument that the defendants must demonstrate that the plaintiffs engaged in forum shopping and that litigation of this matter in the Hale Circuit Court would inappropriately or adversely affect the Hale Circuit Court's legal or administrative process is without merit.

Lastly, we note that the defendants also argue that the transfer of this case from the Hale Circuit Court to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court is justified based on the convenience of the parties and the witnesses. We pretermit discussion of that argument based on our conclusion that the transfer is required under the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1.

Conclusion

The defendants have demonstrated a clear legal right to writs of mandamus directing the Hale Circuit Court to vacate its order denying the defendants' motions for a change of venue and to enter an order transferring this action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.

1160504-PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

1160505-PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

1160517-PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

1160563-PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur.

Main and Sellers, JJ., concur in the result.

      We note that the plaintiffs argue that "Tuscaloosa County did not employ or pay for the services and resources provided by" NorthStar. The plaintiffs' assertion is based solely on the fact that NorthStar is a private company. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs have not directed this Court's attention to any evidence supporting their assertion that Tuscaloosa County did not pay NorthStar for its services.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SELLERS, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    EX PARTE ACTION AUTO SALES, INC.
    (In re: Action Auto Sales, Inc. v. Pine City Motors, LLC; L.M. Stewart ; and Cathy Cargile)
    1160598
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    September 1, 2017
    Judson W. Wells, Sr., Jonathan R. Maples, and Mark A. Dowdy of Carr Allison, Daphne, for petitioner.
    Joseph C. McCorqoudale III of McCorqoudale Law Firm, Jackson, for respondents L.M. Stewart and Cathy Cargile.
   SELLERS, Justice.

Action Auto Sales, Inc. ("AAS"), has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Clarke Circuit Court ("the trial court") to vacate orders denying AAS's objection to L.M. Stewart and Cathy Cargile's notice of intent to serve subpoenas on nonparties Merchants Bank and accountant Eddie Nicholes and denying AAS's motion for a protective order and to issue an order granting its motion. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

The materials before this Court indicate the following. AAS, a financing company, made loans to Pine City Motors, LLC ("Pine City"), so that Pine City could purchase vehicles for resale. Pursuant to various financing agreements and promissory notes, AAS held security interests in the vehicles purchased by Pine City for resale. Stewart and Cargile purchased a vehicle from Pine City, which allegedly was encumbered by a security interest held by AAS. Stewart and Cargile suggest that, after they took possession of the vehicle, Pine City failed to satisfy its debt to AAS, and AAS or Pine City retained physical possession of the certificate of title for the vehicle. Thereafter, AAS sued Pine City, Stewart, and Cargile, requesting damages and a judgment directing Stewart and Cargile to return the vehicle to AAS.

Stewart and Cargile filed a counterclaim against AAS and a cross-claim against Pine City. Pointing to various Alabama statutes, Stewart and Cargile asserted that their rights in the vehicle are superior to AAS's and that AAS or Pine City improperly retained possession of the certificate of title for the vehicle. Stewart and Cargile also demanded compensatory and punitive damages, asserting theories of negligence and wantonness and conspiracy between AAS and Pine City.

During the period at issue, Vivian Paul was the sole shareholder of AAS. Paul testified during deposition that, on occasion, she had personally loaned or contributed funds to AAS so that AAS could, in turn, make loans to Pine City. Paul testified that AAS used an account at Merchants Bank to facilitate loans to Pine City and that the funds Paul transferred to AAS were deposited into that account.

Paul's testimony suggests that some of or all the transfers she made to AAS were not evidenced by promissory notes. She testified, however, that Nicholes, who worked as the accountant for AAS and for Paul personally, kept track of the loans and contributions Paul had made to AAS, as well as debts owed AAS by Pine City. Paul testified that she, too, had kept records of her transactions with AAS on her personal computer but that, around the time Pine City defaulted on its obligations to AAS, Paul had obtained a new computer and was unable to access her records regarding the transactions on the new computer. According to Stewart and Cargile's answer to AAS's mandamus petition, however, "Paul acknowledged that Nicholes should have duplicate records of all the loan information that was stored on her old computer."

After Paul's deposition, Stewart and Cargile filed notices of intent to serve subpoenas on Merchants Bank and Nicholes. The proposed subpoenas requested that those nonparties produce "[a]ny and all financial records for Vivian Paul, personally, or [AAS] and from Vivian Paul or [AAS] for the past five (5) years." AAS filed an objection to the proposed subpoenas and a motion for a protective order, seeking to limit production to only those records showing "cash contributions, injections or loans from Vivian Paul to [AAS]." AAS asserted that records relating solely to Paul's personal finances, and not to her transactions with AAS, should not be produced.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied AAS's requests to limit the scope of the proposed subpoenas, and AAS filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus. AAS asks this Court to direct the trial court to vacate its orders denying AAS's objection to the proposed subpoenas and its motion for a protective order. In support, AAS argues that records relating solely to Paul's personal finances that have no relation to her dealings with AAS are irrelevant and that their production would, without sufficient justification, invade Paul's privacy interests. This Court stayed the trial-court proceedings pending resolution of AAS's petition.

" 'Discovery matters are within the trial court's sound discretion, and this Court will not reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue unless the trial court has clearly exceeded its discretion. Home Ins. Co. v. Rice, 585 So.2d 859, 862 (Ala. 1991). Accordingly, mandamus will issue to reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue only (1) where there is a showing that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion, and (2) where the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. The petitioner has an affirmative burden to prove the existence of each of these conditions.'
" Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So.2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003).
"Moreover, this Court will review by mandamus only those discovery matters involving (a) the disregard of a privilege, (b) the ordered production of 'patently irrelevant or duplicative documents,' (c) orders effectively eviscerating 'a party's entire action or defense,' and (d) orders denying a party the opportunity to make a record sufficient for appellate review of the discovery issue. 872 So.2d at 813-14."

Ex parte Meadowbrook Ins. Grp., Inc., 987 So.2d 540, 547 (Ala. 2007).

AAS relies primarily on Ex parte Morris, 530 So.2d 785 (Ala. 1988). In Morris, a medical-malpractice action, the trial court entered an order compelling the plaintiff's expert witnesses to produce their income-tax records for the nine years preceding the trial date, as well as "personal financial records," which the Court did not describe in detail. Id. at 789. The defendants in that case sought the information in an effort to demonstrate bias on the part of the expert witnesses.

The Court in Morris noted that some federal courts had recognized a "qualified privilege" for tax records, which "impos[ed] high standards of relevancy before parties will be ordered to reveal such records." 530 So.2d at 788. Such a qualified privilege was, according to those courts, justified by " 'the sensitive information contained [in tax records] and the public interest to encourage the filing by taxpayers of complete and accurate returns.' " Id. (quoting Mitsui & Co. v. Puerto Rico Water Res. Auth., 79 F.R.D. 72, 80 (D.P.R. 1978) ). The Court also noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in reviewing an order compelling nonparties to disclose their gross incomes, had observed:

" 'It can scarcely be denied that public exposure of one's wallet or purse is, in the abstract, an invasion of privacy. Nor can it be denied that private individuals have legitimate expectations of privacy regarding the precise amount of their incomes. Unless placed in issue, as in litigation, in a loan application, or when a federal statute or regulation may require publication of annual compensation, for instance, individuals employed in the private sector expect that the amount of their income need be divulged only to the taxing authorities, and to them with an expectation of confidentiality.' "

530 So.2d at 788 (quoting DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 119 (3d Cir. 1982) ).

The Court in Morris noted that the defendants had access to other information they could use to demonstrate bias on the part of the expert witnesses:

"Petitioner points out that [the defendants] took the depositions of both expert witnesses and had ample opportunities to delve into any subject matters concerning the case and that the [defendants] have at their disposal relevant information concerning both expert witnesses with respect to their hourly rates for testifying in cases, the number and names of states in which they have testified as experts, the number of depositions given as experts, and the approximate percentage of income received from medical-legal cases."

530 So.2d at 787. The Court concluded that the prejudice to the witnesses outweighed the probative value of the records sought:

"After weighing the liberal policy of the discovery rules against the emerging qualified privilege disfavoring disclosure of one's income tax records, we hold that petitioner's expert witnesses are not required to produce their income tax records.
"The incremental value that such information would provide respondent for purposes of showing bias is substantially outweighed by the prejudice that would be imposed on a person not a party to the proceedings, and involving an issue that is not controlling. In essence, to require a non-party witness to produce all of his income tax records for nine years preceding trial would clearly be more prejudicial than probative."

530 So.2d at 789. Accordingly, the Court issued a writ of mandamus and directed the trial court "to vacate the order compelling plaintiff's expert witnesses to produce their personal financial records and income tax returns for nine years preceding the date of trial." Id. Relying on Morris, the Court in Ex parte Alabama State University, 553 So.2d 561 (Ala. 1989), issued a writ of mandamus and directed the trial court in that case to vacate an order compelling an official of Alabama State University, who had been sued in his official capacity, to produce personal tax returns and records relating to real property he owned. In issuing the writ, this Court noted that "[n]othing is found in the allegations of the complaint or in the depositions of the plaintiffs that could be interpreted to make [the official's] personal income or property records an issue." 553 So.2d at 562. In the present case, AAS asserts that "Paul's personal financial documents are wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the claims at issue."

Stewart and Cargile point to Rule 26(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., which "contemplates a broad right of discovery" and dictates that "[d]iscovery should be permitted if there is any likelihood that the information sought will aid the party seeking discovery in the pursuit of his claim or defense." Exparte AMI W. Alabama Gen. Hosp., 582 So.2d 484, 485 (Ala. 1991). Stewart and Cargile point out that the primary issue in this case is who holds superior rights in the vehicle. They assert that AAS claims that it holds superior rights based on its "funding of Pine City's floor planned vehicles and its security interest in the vehicles," and they claim that "an investigation into the source of a party's funding may lead to the discovery of important evidence." AAS, however, has not objected to producing financial records that will show the source of AAS's funding. Rather, it objects to the production of Paul's financial records that have nothing to do with her transactions with AAS.

Stewart and Cargile also rely on Paul's deposition testimony indicating that she lost access to records evidencing the loans and contributions she had made to AAS, which had been saved on her old personal computer, when she purchased and installed a new computer. As Stewart and Cargile assert, the transcript of the hearing on AAS's objection to the subpoenas and its motion for a protective order suggests that the trial court doubted the veracity of Paul's explanation, provided during her deposition, for losing the records. Stewart and Cargile argued to the trial court that Paul "was guilty of spoliation" and that, therefore, "her personal records [were] discoverable." This Court, however, fails to see how Paul's alleged concealment or disposal of records, even if established, makes her personal financial information, unrelated to loans and contributions to AAS, relevant to the claims in the present case.

Stewart and Cargile also point to precedent establishing the general proposition that "[w]hen a plaintiff has alleged fraud, discovery must necessarily be broader than in other cases; this is because of the heavy burden of proof imposed on one alleging fraud." Ex parte Horton, 711 So.2d 979, 983 (Ala. 1998). That precedent suggests that, in a fraud case, broad discovery can lead to the uncovering of multiple instances of similar fraudulent conduct on a defendant's part, which might "show the existence of a plan or scheme, motive, or intent on the part of a defendant." Id. In the present case, however, Stewart and Cargile have not made fraud allegations against AAS that would justify requiring the production of Paul's personal financial records, unrelated to her transactions with AAS. We disagree with Stewart and Cargile's position that, "[i]n effect, the suspicious nature of Ms. Paul's loss of all AAS loan data stored on her computer gives rise to a broad investigatory right on behalf of Stewart and Cargile to conduct discovery into all of Ms. Paul's personal financial documentation for the past five years."

Stewart and Cargile also suggest that AAS's corporate veil might be pierced, and Paul held personally liable, because, they suggest, "AAS is merely a pass-through or shell for Ms. Paul personally." Along similar lines, they also point out that "[a] corporate agent who personally participates, albeit in his or her capacity as such agent, in a tort is personally liable for the tort." Sieber v. Campbell, 810 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala. 2001). Ignoring the fact that Paul has not been sued, Stewart and Cargile's rationale for possibly holding her personally liable would be supported by records showing transactions between Paul and AAS or, possibly, transactions between Paul and Pine City, not Paul's personal financial information unrelated to those transactions.

Finally, Stewart and Cargile assert that there is no bright-line constitutional, statutory, or common-law privilege protecting a person's financial information in the hands of third parties. Illustrating that point, they point to federal law that, they claim, allows financial institutions to "disclose a customer's non-public personal financial information in order to comply with a discovery request." That there may not exist a bright-line privilege to refuse to disclose such information, however, does not abrogate this Court's holding in Morris.

We issue the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its orders denying AAS's objection to the proposed subpoenas and its motion for a protective order and to issue an order granting its motion, limiting the scope of discovery to transactions between Paul and AAS.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur.

      The materials before this Court do not suggest that Paul herself filed an objection to the proposed subpoenas, and she has not joined in AAS's mandamus petition. Although Stewart and Cargile argue that the records in question are relevant and that Paul has no expectation of privacy in them, we have not been presented with persuasive argument that AAS, as a party, simply does not have "standing" to challenge the issuance of the nonparty subpoenas based on Paul's alleged privacy interests and the alleged irrelevancy of the information sought. See generally Rule 45(a)(3)(B), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("Any person or party may serve an objection to the issuance of a subpoena for production, inspection, copying, testing or sampling ...."); Rule 26(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, ... the court ... may make any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ...."); and Ex parte Morris, 530 So.2d 785 (Ala. 1988) (considering, and agreeing with, a party's argument that an order compelling that party's expert witnesses to produce tax records and other personal financial information impermissibly called for the production of information of limited probative value and invaded the nonparty witnesses' privacy interests). But see United States v. Idema, 118 F. App'x. 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2005) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) ("Ordinarily, a party does not have standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a nonparty unless the party claims some personal right or privilege in the information sought by the subpoena.").

      The Court was careful to note, however, that it was not "unmindful that such records would be discoverable in appropriate circumstances." Morris, 530 So.2d at 789.


author: WISE, Justice.

text:
    EX PARTE ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
    (In re: Richard Holley v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Company)
    1160536
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    September 1, 2017
    Clark Summerford and Joseph T. Cox III of Zeanah, Hust, Summerford, Williamson & Cox, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
    Silas G. Cross, Jr., and Justin L. Smith of Cross & Smith, LLC, Tuscaloosa, for respondent.
   WISE, Justice.

Alfa Mutual Insurance Company, the defendant below, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct the Pickens Circuit Court to vacate its order denying a motion to transfer the underlying action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court and to enter an order granting the motion. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Facts and Procedural History

On February 20, 2016, Richard Holley, who resided in Pickens County, was involved in a motor-vehicle accident in Tuscaloosa County. The other vehicle was driven by David Craig Evans, who was uninsured. Emergency-medical-services personnel from NorthStar EMS in Tuscaloosa treated Holley at the scene and then transported him to DCH Regional Medical Center in Tuscaloosa. Law-enforcement personnel who were based in Tuscaloosa County also responded to the accident.

After the accident, Holley received follow-up treatment from three medical providers in Tuscaloosa and one medical provider in Mississippi.

Chris Evans, an agent for Alfa who had an office in Pickens County, had issued a personal automobile-insurance policy to Harry Michael Tilley, a resident of Pickens County. Shortly before the accident, Holley was added as an insured on Tilley's policy. The policy included uninsured-motorist coverage for Holley.

On July 18, 2016, Holley's attorney wrote Alfa a letter requesting $75,000 in uninsured-motorist benefits as compensation for injuries Holley suffered as a result of the accident. On August 2, 2016, Alfa sent a letter to Holley's attorney, refusing to pay the requested uninsured-motorist benefits and offering to settle Holley's claim for $10,000. Shortly thereafter, on August 11, 2016, Holley filed a complaint in the Pickens Circuit Court against Alfa, stating uninsured-motorist, breach-of-contract, and bad-faith claims based on Alfa's refusal to pay the requested uninsured-motorist benefits.

On December 28, 2016, Alfa filed a motion to transfer the action to Tuscaloosa County based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified in § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975. On February 15, 2017, Holley filed a response opposing the motion to transfer. On February 16, 2017, the trial court denied the motion to transfer. This petition followed.

Standard of Review

"A petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate 'method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue' pursuant to § 6-3-21.1. Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788, 789 (Ala. 1998)....
" '....'
" 'A party moving for a transfer under § 6-3-21.1 has the initial burden of showing, among other things, one of two factors: (1) that the transfer is justified based on the convenience of either the parties or the witnesses, or (2) that the transfer is justified "in the interest of justice." ' Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 539 (Ala. 2008). Although we review a ruling on a motion to transfer to determine whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting or denying the motion, id., where 'the convenience of the parties and witnesses or the interest of justice would be best served by a transfer, § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975, compels the trial court to transfer the action to the alternative forum.' Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala. 2008) (emphasis added)."

Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d 570, 573 (Ala. 2011).

Discussion

Alfa argues that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying its motion to transfer the action from Pickens County to Tuscaloosa County. Specifically, it contends that Tuscaloosa County has a strong connection to the case because, among other things, the motor-vehicle accident that gave rise to Holley's claim occurred there. In contrast, Alfa asserts that the case has "very little, if any," connection to Pickens County. In particular, it asserts:

"The only connection to Pickens County is that 'a Pickens County resident was denied insurance benefits.' The Plaintiff, however, did not purchase the policy, did not request the issuance of the policy, did not pay any part of a premium on the policy, did not have the policy delivered to him, and was not involved 'in any way in the procurement, delivery to the insured, or payment for the policy.' "

Therefore, Alfa asserts that the interest-of-justice prong of Alabama's forum non conveniens statute mandates a transfer to Tuscaloosa County.

Section 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

"With respect to civil actions filed in an appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein."

(Emphasis added.)

"Historically, the plaintiff has had the initial choice of venue under the system established by the legislature for determining venue. Before the enactment of § 6-3-21.1 by the Alabama Legislature in 1987, a plaintiff's choice of venue could not be disturbed on the basis of convenience to the parties or the witnesses or in the interest of justice. With the adoption of § 6-3-21.1, trial courts now have 'the power and the duty to transfer a cause when "the interest of justice" requires a transfer.' Ex parte First Family Fin. Servs., Inc., 718 So.2d 658, 660 (Ala. 1998) (emphasis added). In First Family, this Court noted that an argument that trial judges have almost unlimited discretion in determining whether a case should be transferred under § 6-3-21.1'must be considered in light of the fact that the Legislature used the word "shall" instead of the word "may" in § 6-3-21.1.' 718 So.2d at 660. This Court has further held that 'Alabama's forum non conveniens statute is compulsory.' Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.2d 898, 905 n.9 (Ala. 2004)."

Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745, 748-49 (Ala. 2010).

"The 'interest of justice' prong of § 6-3-21.1 requires 'the transfer of the action from a county with little, if any, connection to the action, to the county with a strong connection to the action.' Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d [788,] 790 [ (Ala. 1998) ]. Therefore, 'in analyzing the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1, this Court focuses on whether the "nexus" or "connection" between the plaintiff's action and the original forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the plaintiff's forum with the action.' Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 911 (Ala. 2008). Additionally, this Court has held that 'litigation should be handled in the forum where the injury occurred.' Ex parte Fuller, 955 So.2d 414, 416 (Ala. 2006). Further, in examining whether it is in the interest of justice to transfer a case, we consider 'the burden of piling court services and resources upon the people of a county that is not affected by the case and ... the interest of the people of a county to have a case that arises in their county tried close to public view in their county.' Ex parte Smiths Water & Sewer Auth., 982 So.2d 484, 490 (Ala. 2007)."

Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 540 (Ala. 2008).

The parties do not dispute that the complaint was filed in an appropriate venue, namely, Pickens County. Likewise, they do not dispute that the action could properly have been filed in Tuscaloosa County. However, they do dispute whether the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1 requires a transfer of the underlying case from Pickens County to Tuscaloosa County.

As Alfa points out in its brief, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addressed a factually similar case in which similar arguments were made in Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., 142 So.3d 728 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). In Ex parte Alfa, Willie Kirk, a resident of Macon County, filed a complaint in the Macon Circuit Court against Alfa and various fictitiously named defendants, asserting claims that arose out of an automobile accident he had had with Melissa Nelson, who was alleged to be uninsured, in Lee County. After the accident, Kirk was treated at a hospital in Lee County and later received follow-up treatment from a number of medical-care providers located in Lee County. Alfa filed a motion to transfer the case to Lee County based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens; Kirk filed a response in opposition in which he asserted that "the gravamen of his claim was the insurer's alleged breach of the parties' insurance contract." 142 So.3d at 729. The trial court denied that motion, and Alfa petitioned for a writ of mandamus.

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals granted Alfa's petition and issued the writ, reasoning, in relevant part:

"In this case, substantially all the pertinent events occurring after the formation of the parties' insurance contract that can be said to constitute the factual basis of the insured's claimed right to recover benefits under the uninsured-motorist coverage provisions of that contract occurred in Lee County. See Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 893 So.2d 1111, 1115 (Ala. 2004) (uninsured-motorist-insurance claimants had the legal burden to demonstrate fault on the part of the uninsured motorist and the extent of damage stemming therefrom before the claimants could recover from their insurer under the pertinent policy; therefore, the act or omission underlying their claim occurred, and the claim arose, at the place of the automobile collision made the basis of the claimants' civil action against their insurer ). In contrast, the insured was a resident of Macon County at the time his cause of action against the insurer accrued, and it is not disputed by the insurer that it does business by agent in Macon County.
"....
"The insurer correctly notes in its petition that the 'interest of justice' prong of § 6-3-21.1 requires 'the transfer of [an] action from a county with little, if any, connection to the action, to the county with a strong connection to the action,' Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788, 790 (Ala. 1998), an inquiry that necessarily 'focuses on whether the "nexus" or "connection" between the plaintiff's action and the original forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the plaintiff's forum with the action.' Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 911 (Ala. 2008). We further note that, '[a]lthough it is not a talisman, the fact that the injury occurred in the proposed transferee county is often assigned considerable weight in an interest-of-justice analysis.'
Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d 570, 573-74 (Ala. 2011).
"The materials submitted by the insurer in support of its petition indicate a strong connection between the insured's claim and Lee County. The collision that forms the factual basis of the insured's claim occurred in Lee County, and the initial medical providers and responders who ministered to the insured did so in Lee County. Further, Nelson, the motorist alleged to have been at fault in that collision, resides in Lee County, and there is currently a parallel action pending in Lee County involving the insurer's claim for reimbursement against Nelson that will likely necessitate testimony from the same witnesses for resolution; thus, in the words of Tennessee Bank, the courts of Lee County can be said to already have been 'burden[ed]' by litigation concerning the collision. ...
"The insured's filings in the Macon Circuit Court do not touch and concern the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1 so much as they do the convenience-of-parties-and-witnesses prong. Regardless of whether any or all of the insured's current treating physicians are located in Jefferson County or in Lee County, their sole nexus with the insured's action is their treatment of the insured, which has not occurred in Macon County. Although the insurer does business by agent in Macon County and delivered the pertinent insurance policy to the insured in Macon County, the claim asserted by the insured is, as Ex parte State Farm indicates, one that is actually in the nature of a hypothecated tort claim against Nelson as to which the insurer is ostensibly responsible to pay. That hypothecated tort claim, like the insurer's parallel claim against Nelson that actually sounds in tort, is rooted in events that occurred in Lee County and is comparatively less intimately connected to Macon County and, thus, fails to warrant burdening Macon County's court services and resources. See Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 540 and n.2 (Ala. 2008) (in which our supreme court granted a petition seeking a transfer of a tort action from Macon County to Lee County when only one individual defendant out of five total defendants resided in Macon County and a second defendant did business there; in contrast, the automobile crash made the basis of the claim had occurred in Lee County and had been investigated by Lee County authorities).
"Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, we conclude that the Macon Circuit Court acted outside its discretion in denying the insurer's motion to transfer the insured's action from Macon County to Lee County to the extent that that court concluded that the interest of justice did not require the requested transfer."

Ex parte Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 142 So.3d at 730-32.

Based on the reasoning in Ex parte Alfa and the cases cited therein, Alfa has established that Tuscaloosa County has a stronger connection to the claims in this case than has Pickens County. The accident occurred in Tuscaloosa County. See Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., supra, and Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 893 So.2d 1111 (Ala. 2004). Also, law-enforcement personnel who responded to the accident worked in Tuscaloosa County; Holley was treated by emergency-medical-services personnel from Tuscaloosa at the scene of the accident; Holley was taken to a hospital in Tuscaloosa County after the accident; and Holley received follow-up treatment from three medical-care providers in Tuscaloosa County. Further, both Holley and Evans worked in Tuscaloosa County, and Evans resided in Tuscaloosa County at the time the motion to transfer was filed. In contrast, Pickens County's only connections to the case were the fact that Holley is a resident of Pickens County and that the Alfa agent who issued the policy to Tilley was located in Pickens County. However, Holley did not originally purchase the policy, and his name was not on the original policy. Also, it appears that Holley did not pay any of the premiums for the policy. Even though there is not any indication that there is a parallel action pending in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court at this time, as Alfa points out: "This Court has held that 'there can be no breach of an uninsured motorist contract, and therefore no bad faith, until the insured proves that he is legally entitled to recover.' Quick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 429 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Ala. 1983)." Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 915 So.2d 557, 563 (Ala. 2005). Also, Holley's "hypothecated tort claim ... is rooted in events that occurred in [Tuscaloosa] County and is comparatively less intimately connected to [Pickens] County and, thus, fails to warrant burdening [Pickens] County's court services and resources." Ex parte Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 142 So.3d at 731. Finally, we reiterate that, "[a]lthough it is not a talisman, the fact that the injury occurred in the proposed transferee county is often assigned considerable weight in an interest-of-justice analysis." Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d at 573-74. Under these circumstances, Pickens County has only a very weak overall connection to the claims and Tuscaloosa County has a much stronger connection to the claims. Therefore, the interest-of-justice prong of the forum non conveniens statute requires that the action be transferred to Tuscaloosa County.

Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons, we conclude that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying Alfa's motion for a change of venue based on the interest-of-justice prong of the forum non conveniens statute. Accordingly, we grant Alfa's petition for the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court, in the interest of justice, to vacate its order denying the motion to transfer the action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court and to enter an order transferring the case from the Pickens Circuit Court to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Bryan, and Sellers, JJ., concur.

Murdock, J., dissents.

      With regard to venue of actions against corporations, § 6-3-7, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:
      "(a) All civil actions against corporations may be brought in any of the following counties:
      "(1) In the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred...; or
      "....
      "(3) In the county in which the plaintiff resided ... at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, if such corporation does business by agent in the county of the plaintiff's residence."

      In his answer to the petition, Holley cites additional "facts" that allegedly support the trial court's ruling denying a transfer to Tuscaloosa County. However, because those "facts" were "contained in 'statements of counsel in motions, briefs, and arguments,' [they] cannot be considered 'evidentiary material' and thus will not be considered by this Court." Autauga Heating & Cooling, 58 So.3d at 749-50.