The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently reversed a decision that transferred a declaratory judgment case from Pulaski County to Phillips County. This ruling affects Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (SFB) and several individuals involved in a car accident. The court found that the lower court had improperly transferred the case, which could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.
The case began after a car accident on March 4, 2024, when Samantha Eggleston was driving a vehicle owned by Brittany Arvie. Eggleston collided with another vehicle driven by Kevin Stackhouse, which then struck property owned by Sheila and Dwight Hardison. Following the accident, Stackhouse and the Hardisons filed a negligence lawsuit in Phillips County, seeking damages for property and personal injuries.
In response to the negligence lawsuit, SFB filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Pulaski County. SFB claimed that Eggleston was driving Arvie's vehicle without permission, which would exclude coverage under SFB's insurance policy. The company argued that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify Eggleston in the Phillips County lawsuit. Arvie admitted that Eggleston used her car without her permission.
After filing its complaint, SFB amended it to include Stackhouse and the Hardisons as defendants. The amended complaint reiterated SFB's position that it had no duty to defend Eggleston. Stackhouse then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Pulaski County case should be dismissed because the same issues were already being litigated in Phillips County. He asserted that Phillips County was the more appropriate venue since the accident occurred there and most witnesses lived nearby.
SFB countered that the two cases were different. The Pulaski County case was about the insurance policy, while the Phillips County case involved negligence claims. SFB maintained that it was not a party to the negligence lawsuit and that its duty to defend was not at stake in that case. The Hardisons also filed motions to dismiss and sought to transfer the case to Phillips County, arguing it was the more convenient forum.
In June 2025, a hearing was held regarding the Hardisons' motion. The court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the transfer to Phillips County, stating that it believed Phillips County was a better venue due to the location of the accident and the witnesses. However, the court clarified that its decision was not based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which typically applies to cases involving different jurisdictions.
Southern Farm Bureau then appealed the transfer decision. The sole issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in transferring the case to Phillips County. The court ruled that the lower court had indeed made an error. It stated that the circuit court relied on factors associated with the forum non conveniens doctrine, which should not have been applied in this situation.
Judge Cindy Grace Thyer noted that when the legislative branch allows a plaintiff to choose a venue, courts should respect that choice. The court emphasized that SFB had properly filed its declaratory judgment action in Pulaski County, and the circuit court's transfer to Phillips County was inappropriate. The court stated, "When the legislative branch of the government gives the plaintiff the choice of venues and the plaintiff diligently exercises the choice, the courts should not apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens to transfer a matter to another county."
The court's ruling reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case back to Pulaski County for further proceedings. This ruling reinforces the importance of respecting a plaintiff's choice of venue in declaratory judgment actions and clarifies that the forum non conveniens doctrine does not apply between counties in Arkansas.
The impact of this ruling could be significant for future cases involving insurance companies and venue disputes. It sets a precedent that courts must adhere to the legislative choices regarding venue and not transfer cases based solely on convenience. This decision may affect how insurance companies approach similar cases and how courts handle venue disputes in the future.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the parties involved will seek further appeals or if there are related cases pending. The court's decision to reverse and remand emphasizes the need for careful consideration of venue choices in legal proceedings.