Federal Insurance Company “Federal” appeals from the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County dismissing this case on forum non conveniens grounds pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1. Because the trial court failed to make the findings of fact required to support its decision, we vacate the dismissal order, reinstate the case below, and remand for further proceedings. Georgia’s forum non conveniens statute provides, in relevant part: If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state . . . , the court shall decline to adjudicate the matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall dismiss the claim or action. . . . In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action . . . under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the following factors: 1 Relative ease of access to sources of proof; 2 Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; 3 Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action; 4 Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff’s own right to pursue his or her remedy; 5 Administrative difficulties for the forum courts; 6 Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and 7 The traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 a. When a court applies this statute, it must make oral or written findings of fact reflecting an analysis of the “procedural framework” of the statute, specifically considering and weighing each of the seven factors enumerated. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 242, 248-249 2 614 SE2d 875 2005.1 An order dismissing a case under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 248 2. The record shows that Federal sued Chicago Insurance Company “Chicago” in Fulton County seeking contribution and subrogation from Chicago for amounts paid by Federal on behalf of an insured to settle a Mississippi wrongful death action. None of the parties in that underlying, settled wrongful death suit were Georgia residents. Although Chicago and Federal are authorized to write policies in Georgia and have registered agents for service of process in Georgia,2 neither company is headquartered here. None of the insurance policies in dispute were issued in Georgia. The relevant documents and witnesses are not in Georgia, and some witnesses may be beyond the subpoena power of the court. Litigating in Georgia would be cumbersome and expensive for the parties, requiring travel for depositions outside of Georgia and possibly the retention of local counsel. The trial court concluded the case would be burdensome because it added to the court’s case load, required the court to apply foreign law, and required the court to bear expenses, like the cost of funding a jury.
It appears Federal chose to sue Chicago in Georgia because Georgia’s applicable six-year statute of limitations period had yet to expire.3 Federal waited five years and nine months from the date of settlement to file suit. Although Federal admitted it might find another forum to litigate this suit,4 neither it nor Chicago identified an alternative forum in which the suit “would be more properly heard.”
