## Facts

- Susan Glasbrenner was injured in a Caldor store in New Jersey in 1994 and sued Caldor in New Jersey state court in 1995.
- Caldor had filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, which stayed the New Jersey tort action during bankruptcy proceedings.
- The bankruptcy court ultimately permitted the New Jersey action to proceed, conditioned on any recovery not being enforced against the bankruptcy estate but instead against Caldor’s insurers, including Gulf Insurance Company.
- In 2003, a New Jersey jury entered an approximately $2.6 million verdict against Caldor.
- Gulf filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that it had no obligation under its policy to pay the New Jersey judgment.
- The Glasbrenners moved to dismiss Gulf’s federal action for improper venue and also filed a separate action in New Jersey to compel payment (stayed pending this appeal).
- Gulf alleged that the insurance policy was submitted, approved, and issued in New York and that relevant coverage-related corporate conduct occurred in the Southern District of New York.

## Issues

1. Whether venue for Gulf’s declaratory-judgment coverage action was proper in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there.
2. Whether the district court applied an incorrect venue standard by effectively treating the location of the underlying tort and judgment (New Jersey) as dispositive.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal for improper venue and remanded.
- The court held that § 1391(b)(2) permits venue in any district where significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff’s claim occurred; more than one district may be proper.
- The court directed the district court to allow Gulf an opportunity to present evidence supporting venue in the Southern District of New York.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in any district in which significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff’s claim occurred; the statute does not require identifying the single “best” forum.
- Venue analysis must be tied to the nature of the claim; for insurance coverage/contract disputes, relevant events can include where the policy was negotiated, submitted, approved, issued, administered, and where coverage decisions were made.
- When venue is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden to make at least a prima facie showing that venue is proper, and courts should permit development of an evidentiary record when needed.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the venue inquiry under § 1391(b)(2) turns on whether significant, claim-related events occurred in the chosen district and that, in a coverage dispute, policy-related conduct in New York could support venue even if the underlying injury and judgment occurred in New Jersey; the dismissal was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings on venue.


Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005)