## Facts

- The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) contracted with San Marco Contracting Co. (San Marco) for a road project to be performed in Walton County.
- San Marco subcontracted part of the work to Noonan.
- Noonan sued San Marco in Escambia County for damages allegedly caused by San Marco’s delay; venue for Noonan’s claim was sustained there.
- San Marco filed a third-party complaint against DOT in the Escambia County action, seeking indemnity for any liability to Noonan and alleging DOT caused delays by imposing erosion and pollution control requirements beyond the contract.
- DOT moved to transfer venue of the third-party claim, relying on § 337.19(3), Florida Statutes (1975), which permits suit against DOT only in Leon County or in the county where the cause of action accrued.
- The trial court denied DOT’s motion, reasoning that venue for the third-party claim was proper where the main action was pending.
- DOT took an interlocutory appeal from the order denying the change of venue.

## Issues

1. Whether § 337.19(3), Florida Statutes (1975), restricts venue for a contractor’s third-party indemnity claim against DOT to Leon County or the county where the claim accrued, notwithstanding the pendency of the main action in another county.
2. Whether San Marco’s indemnity claim against DOT “accrued” in Escambia County within the meaning of § 337.19(3).
3. Whether third-party practice and considerations of consolidated litigation can override DOT’s statutory venue limitation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order denying DOT’s motion for change of venue as to the third-party complaint.
- The court held that venue in Escambia County was improper for San Marco’s claim against DOT because § 337.19(3) governs actions against DOT on contract claims.
- The court concluded the indemnity claim did not accrue in Escambia County, where no part of the DOT contract work was to be performed and where DOT would not be obligated to pay San Marco.
- The case was remanded with directions to transfer the third-party claim to a venue permitted by § 337.19(3) (Leon County or the county where the cause of action accrued).

## Legal Principles

- When a statute provides a specific venue rule for suits against a governmental entity, that rule controls over general venue doctrines and procedural mechanisms.
- A third-party claim against DOT arising out of a DOT construction contract is an action governed by § 337.19, including its venue restriction.
- Venue for a claim against DOT is not established merely because the claim is asserted as a third-party action in a county where the main lawsuit is properly pending.
- For purposes of § 337.19(3), a contract-based claim against DOT accrues in the county tied to the contract’s performance, breach, or payment obligation, not in a county connected only to downstream litigation between private parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that DOT’s statutory venue privilege under § 337.19(3) could not be defeated by impleader in a properly venued main action, and it required transfer of the contractor’s third-party indemnity claim to Leon County or the county where the claim accrued.


State Dep’t of Transp. v. San Marco Contracting Co., 355 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)