§

Fidelity c. Co. of Md. v. Gainesville c. Inc.

125 Ga. App. 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Fidelity c. Co. of Md. v. Gainesville c. Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Harry S. Peterson Co. v. Nat. Union

    209 Ga. App. 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 21 times
    In Harry S. Peterson Co. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 209 Ga. App. 585, 589-591 (434 S.E.2d 778) (1993), we adopted the United States Supreme Court's analysis in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (92 SC 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513) (1972), wherein it determined that forum selection contract clauses "are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances."

    For an in-depth discussion of this subject, see Validity Of Contractual Provision Limiting Place Or Court In Which Action May Be Brought, 31 ALR4th 404-445 (1984). Peterson relies on Fidelity c. Co. of Maryland v. Gainesville Iron Works, 125 Ga. App. 829 ( 189 S.E.2d 130) (1972) and Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment, 132 Ga. App. 748 ( 209 S.E.2d 132) (1974) for the proposition that all venue selection contract clauses are against Georgia public policy and will not be enforced by Georgia courts. However, both of these cases deal with intrastate transactions.

  2. Huddle House, Inc. v. Paragon Foods, Inc.

    263 Ga. App. 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that defendant's motion to transfer action from county where tort occurred to county where defendant had place of business served to preserve defendant's right to remove case under OCGA § 14-2-510 (b) because defendant filed transfer motion within 45-day period

    It appears that Newsome and Chester are also Georgia residents. 125 Ga. App. 829 ( 189 S.E.2d 130) (1972). Compare Harry S. Peterson Co. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 209 Ga. App. 585, 591(3) ( 434 S.E.2d 778) (1993) (enforcing contract forum selection clause does not offend the principles of Fidelity).

  3. Lankford v. Orkin Exterminating Co.

    266 Ga. App. 228 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding plaintiffs ratified a service contract signed by live-in mother where plaintiffs accepted benefits and made payments under the contract

    [Cits.]" Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Gainesville Iron Works, 125 Ga. App. 829, 830 ( 189 SE2d 130) (1972). As appellants acknowledged in their brief below, "[t]here is no real dispute that Orkin treated the Lankford home and that Ashley Lankford accepted the benefits and paid for those services."

  4. Brinson v. Martin

    220 Ga. App. 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 33 times
    Concluding that record did not support assertion of no notice when contract was six pages long, contained fourteen enumerated paragraphs, and venue clause was conspicuous; and rejecting argument of disparate bargaining powers when nothing in the record addressed the relative bargaining positions of the parties or suggested that signor did not have the option of refusing to sign the contract containing the clause

    Id. (b) "[Brinson] relies on Fidelity c. Co. of Maryland v. Gainesville Iron Works, 125 Ga. App. 829 ( 189 S.E.2d 130) (1972) and Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment, 132 Ga. App. 748 ( 209 S.E.2d 132) (1974), for the proposition that all venue selection contract clauses are against Georgia public policy and will not be enforced by Georgia courts. However, both of these cases deal[t] with intrastate transactions[,]" and the complaints were premised on violations of a specific state insurance law with its own venue provision.

  5. Regency Mall Associates v. G. W.'s Restaurant, Inc.

    213 Ga. App. 225 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times

    Held: While it is the public policy of this state that provisions fixing the venue of an action on the contract are void ( Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment, 132 Ga. App. 748 ( 209 S.E.2d 132) and Fidelity c. Co. of Maryland v. Gainesville Iron Works, 125 Ga. App. 829, 830 ( 189 S.E.2d 130)), the contract provision in this appeal is not such a provision. Instead, this type of provision is a forum selection clause which does not offend the principles of Fidelity c. Co. of Maryland v. Gainesville Iron Works, supra. Harry S. Peterson Co. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 209 Ga. App. 585, 591 ( 434 S.E.2d 778). Moreover, the language of Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment, supra, referring to "'broad considerations of public policy against limiting venue by contract'" was disapproved by the majority opinion in Harry S. Peterson Co. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., supra at 590.

  6. Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment

    132 Ga. App. 748 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that the public policy of the state was contrary to limiting venue by contract.

    QUILLIAN, Judge. Under that which was held in Fidelity Deposit Ins. Co. v. Gainesville Iron Works, 125 Ga. App. 829 ( 189 S.E.2d 130), a provision of a contract fixing the venue of an action on the contract as to future litigation is void as contrary to public policy. Relying on the Gainesville Iron Works case, the lower court judge was correct in holding that such a contract provision was unenforceable in the case sub judice.

  7. Stephens v. Entre Computer Centers, Inc.

    696 F. Supp. 636 (N.D. Ga. 1988)   Cited 20 times
    Finding that a forum-selection clause was neither hidden nor fraudulent when the clause was "printed in the same type as the rest of the document"

    Plaintiffs are correct that forum selection clauses are contrary to Georgia public policy. See Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment, Inc., 132 Ga. App. 748, 209 S.E.2d 132 (1974); Fidelity Deposit Company of Maryland v. Gainesville Iron Works, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 829, 189 S.Ed.2d 130 (1972). However, their argument about the relevance of Georgia law is rejected because the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that transfers of cases within the federal court system involve procedural rules and are purely matters of federal law.

  8. Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Klippan, GmbH

    611 P.2d 498 (Alaska 1980)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that although "[i]nconvenience to at least some parties" would occur because "legal doctrine, documents, exhibits, witnesses, and counsel" from Germany and Alaska would be involved, exercise of personal jurisdiction would not violate due process

    The United States Supreme Court in that case stated: See, e.g., Fidelity Union Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 477 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1972); Cartridge Rental Network v. Video Entertainment Inc., 132 Ga. App. 748, 209 S.E.2d 132 (1974); Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md. v. Gainesville Iron Works, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 829, 189 S.E.2d 130 (1972). E.g., M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972); Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler, 578 F.2d 953, 964-966 (3rd Cir. 1978); Leasewell, Ltd. v. Jake Shelton Ford, Inc., 423 F. Supp. 1011, 1015-1016 (S.D.W. Va. 1976).