Gelwan v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company

Background

Lloyd A. Gelwan, proceeding without a lawyer even though he is an attorney, sued Vermont Mutual Insurance Company and Berkshire Insurance Group, Inc. The complaint sought damages, a court declaration, and attorneys’ fees based on alleged retaliation for Gelwan’s earlier successful lawsuit against Vermont Mutual.

The action began in New York state court and was later moved to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. Both defendants asked the federal court to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute allows a federal court to move a civil case to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. Gelwan opposed transfer.

Court’s Analysis

Gelwan conceded that the case could have been brought in the District of Massachusetts. The court therefore focused on whether the convenience and justice factors supported transfer.

The court found that the convenience of witnesses strongly favored Massachusetts. The witnesses with the most direct knowledge of the coverage, the non-renewal, the property damage, and Berkshire’s policies and practices were primarily in Massachusetts. These included Berkshire employees, contractors, insurance adjusters, and representatives of insurance companies involved with the property. The court gave less weight to Gelwan, his wife, and several New York witnesses because Gelwan was a party, some witnesses were unnamed, and the proposed testimony of others was only minimally relevant or uncertain.

The court also found that the defendants could not use a subpoena to compel several important Massachusetts witnesses to testify in New York because they were outside the geographic limits for compelling a nonparty witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1). Gelwan’s and his wife’s medical difficulties made travel to Massachusetts difficult, but the court concluded that addressing their travel problems would be easier than resolving the defendants’ inability to compel testimony from multiple material witnesses.

The court found that the convenience-of-the-parties factor favored neither side. It treated the location of documents as irrelevant because the records could be presented electronically or easily digitized. The court concluded that the operative facts were in Massachusetts, where the property damage occurred, where relevant meetings took place, and where the dispute over the damage was connected to Vermont Mutual’s decision not to renew the policy. New York was not the location of the operative facts merely because Gelwan received communications there and experienced financial effects there.

The court gave little weight to the governing-law factor because the case involved both New York and Massachusetts law, and federal courts generally give that factor little weight in transfer decisions. It also gave only limited weight to Gelwan’s choice of New York because the operative facts had no material connection to that district. Finally, the court found that trial would likely be more efficient in Massachusetts because the property and most witnesses were there.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick concluded that most factors favored transfer and that the matter was not a close one. Defendants’ motion to transfer was GRANTED. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed open motions and transfer the case forthwith to the District of Massachusetts, Western Division. The court did not decide the merits of Gelwan’s underlying claims.