The insured filed a complaint in a Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court against Defendant, his insurer, arising out of a car accident involving Plaintiff and a third party and setting forth only a bad faith claim against Defendant. Defendant removed the case based on diversity to the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania. Before the court for its consideration was Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand based on the theory of forum non conveniens due to Plaintiff’s medical condition and inability to travel. The court also noted that a motion to remand is generally based only on defects in the removal.
The court noted that the argument of an inconvenient forum applies when considering transfers or dismissal, as opposed to remand. Still, the court did not foreclose considering the inconvenience of the forum in addressing a motion to remand. However, the court noted that Plaintiff failed to set forth any caselaw supporting his theory of inconvenience based on a medical condition.
Further, the court noted that forum non conveniens is generally limited to the context of when a more convenient forum is in a foreign country. As a result, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
Date of decision: March 31, 2008
Hamed v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 08-00133 (W.D. Pa. March 31, 2008).
(Barry Fischer, J.).