In Ex parte Continental Roofing Company, LLC, SC-2025-0163 (Feb. 27, 2026) the Alabama Supreme Court (Mendheim, J.; and Stewart, C.J., Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Cook, McCool, and Parker, JJ., concur) address whether a forum-selection clause required dismissal or transfer of a homeowner’s lawsuit. The plaintiff, Tim Cloud, hired Continental to install a roof. Cloud alleged that the roof was defective and that repairs were unsuccessful. Ms. *2. Cloud alleged ongoing defects, moisture exposure, and eventual lack of communication from Continental, and he filed suit in Etowah County asserting breach of warranty and negligence claims. Ms. *3.
Continental moved to dismiss for improper venue based on a purported service agreement containing a forum-selection clause requiring litigation in Madison County. Ms. *3-4. The central dispute was whether Continental proved that the parties were bound by the agreement containing the clause. Although Continental attached a blank “Service Agreement” form, Cloud denied signing or receiving it, and Continental offered no executed copy or other evidence linking the document to the parties’ transaction. Ms. *4-5. The trial court denied the motion, and Continental petitioned for a writ of mandamus. Ms. *7.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Continental failed to meet its burden of proving improper venue. Ms. *17. The Court emphasized that enforcement of a forum-selection clause requires evidence that the parties actually agreed to it. Ms. *16. Because Continental submitted only an unsigned, generic form and no supporting proof of assent, it failed to establish a clear legal right to dismissal or transfer. Ms. *16-17. Accordingly, the trial court did not exceed its discretion, and mandamus relief was denied. Ms. *17.