Ex parte Penn National Security Insurance Company, [Ms. SC-2025-0152, Sept. 19, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Bryan, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) denies Penn National Security Insurance Company’s (“Penn National”) mandamus petition seeking to require the Dallas Circuit Court to transfer the subject motor vehicle collision case to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court pursuant to § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975.
The collision occurred in rural Tuscaloosa County. The accident report was prepared by an officer of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and no emergency medical services responded to the scene. Plaintiff Godwin did not receive any medical treatment in Tuscaloosa County. Ms. *2. Godwin, a resident of Dallas County, was working in the line and scope of his employment with Talton Communications, Inc. (“Talton”). Talton’s principal place of business is in Dallas County. Ms. **2-3. Talton provided uninsured/underinsured-motorist benefits to its employees through Penn National, a foreign corporation.
Godwin sued Desi Peoples, who rear ended him, Penn National, and Talton in the Dallas Circuit Court. Godwin “sought relief based on claims of negligence and wantonness, the uninsured/underinsured-motorist provisions of the Penn National policy, and the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.” Ms. *3.
In denying the petition, the Court emphasizes that:
Penn National relies almost exclusively on the fact that the accident, and thus Godwin’s injury, occurred in Tuscaloosa County and that the accident was investigated there. It also makes a general statement that “litigating this suit in Dallas County would be vexatious and oppressive to not only Penn National, but most importantly, to Peoples.” Penn National, however, presented no affidavits or other evidence from its own representatives or witnesses showing that there would be any burden on them in attending proceedings in Dallas County. It likewise presented no affidavit from Peoples stating that he would be burdened by proceedings in Dallas County. “The arguments of counsel are not evidence.” Deng v. Scroggins, 169 So. 3d 1015, 1028 (Ala. 2014).
Ms. *10.
The Court reiterates that a “party seeking transfer [in the interest of justice] must show not only that the requested forum has a strong connection to the action, but also that the current forum has only a weak connection to the action.” Ms. *17. The Court denies the writ concluding “events material to Godwin’s claims occurred in Dallas County. All of his medical treatment occurred there, most of the witnesses reside there and will testify about events that occurred there, his employment on which his workers’ compensation claim rests is based there, and Penn National’s policy was issued there. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that nothing material to the action occurred in Dallas County or that Dallas County has only a weak connection with the case.” Ms. **26-27.