Hagin v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
PATRICK HAGIN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 2:26-cv-04013-MDH
)
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY 	)
INSURANCE COMPANY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company’s
(“Allstate”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue.
(Doc. 10). Defendant filed Suggestions in Support (Doc. 11), Plaintiff filed Suggestions in
Opposition (Doc. 12) and Defendant has filed a reply. (Doc. 13). The motion is now ripe for
adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for
Improper Venue is DENIED and Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an insurance dispute regarding the total cost of damages resulting
from a hail and windstorm to property located at 1 Arundel Place, St. Louis, Missouri, 63105 (the
“Property”). Plaintiff Patrick Hagin is the owner of the Property. Defendant Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company is a foreign corporate insurance company, with its principal place of
business in Northbrook, Illinois.
Prior to May 16, 2025, Defendant issued to Plaintiff a Homeowner’s policy, policy number
885285548 (the “Policy). The Policy covers the Property and insures against all risk of physical
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 14

2
loss to the dwelling unless specifically excluded. On or about May 16, 2025, the Property suffered
damage from a severe hail and windstorm (the “Loss”). Plaintiff subsequently notified Defendant
of the loss and submitted a claim for damages to Defendant. On August 11, 2025, at the direction
of Defendant, NV5 Consultants’ engineer inspected the Property and issued a report dated August
20, 2025, which found damage to the tile roof covering, including shattered, fractured, and/or
displaced titles. On September 3, 2025, Defendant’s revised estimate of covered damages for the
Loss totaled $23, 646.42 in Replacement Cost Value (“RCV”) and $21,992.87 for Actual Cost
Value (“ACV”).
Plaintiff retained Combined Loss Consulting to prepare a loss assessment and estimate that
were caused by the Loss. On November 4, 2025, Combined Loss Consulting estimated that the
Property suffered direct physical loss and identified the estimated costs to restore the Property to
its pre-loss condition at $484,615.02 RCV. Plaintiff submitted to Defendant on November 7, 2025,
the Combined Loss Consulting estimate, which Defendant rejected. On November 21, 2025, the
NV5 engineer reinspected the Property and issued a supplemental report dated December 3, 2025,
which determined that the recommended roof replacement from Combined Loss Consultants was
excessive and that the conceptual repair recommendations provided in the original NV5 report
could be performed.
While Plaintiff was negotiating with Defendant regarding payment, Plaintiff obtained a
quote from Smart Tarp in an effort to protect his home from further damages, which Smart Tarp
quoted Plaintiff an amount of $24,972.00. On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff notified Defendant of
the Smart Tarp quote to which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was unable to accept the tarp
estimate as their provision is only up to $5,000 for temporary repairs to protect covered property
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 14

3
from further imminent loss following a covered event. Plaintiff entered into a contract for
mitigation with Smart Tarp without the assistance from Defendant.
On December 9, 2025, Defendant revised the estimate of covered damages for the loss
totaling $25,076.98 RCV and $23,423.43 ACV and denied Plaintiff’s demand for payment. On
December 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri
alleging two counts: Count I - Breach of Contract and Count II - Vexatious Refusal to Pay in
Violation of Rev. Mo. Stat. §§ 375.296 and 375.420. On January 16, 2026, Defendant removed
the case to this Court and on January 23, 2026, filed its current motion.
STANDARD
I. 	Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint for
“improper venue.” Venue of removed cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and the general
venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, has no application. See Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345
U.S. 663, 665, 73 S.Ct. 900, 97 L.Ed. 1331 (1953) (“[O]n the question of venue, § 1391 has no
application to this case because this is a removed action. The venue of removed actions is governed
by [§]1441(a) ....”); accord Lyngholm v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 827 F.Supp.2d 912,
916 (S.D.Iowa 2011).
II. 	Motion to Transfer Venue
Section 1404(a) governs the ability of a federal district court to transfer a case to another
district. Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997). “For the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). There is no “exhaustive list of
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 14

4
specific factors to consider in making the transfer decision, but district courts should weigh any
case-specific factors relevant to convenience and fairness to determine whether transfer is
warranted.” In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir. 2010). Such case-specific factors include
(1) the convenience to the parties and the witnesses, (2) the interests of justice, and (3) judicial
economy. Id. at 913–16. 	“In general, federal courts give considerable deference to a plaintiff’s
choice of forum.” Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 695 (8th Cir. 1997).
“[T]he party seeking a transfer under section 1404(a) typically bears the burden of proving that a
transfer is warranted.” Id.
ANALYSIS
I. 	Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue
Defendant argues that venue is not proper in the Western District of Missouri. In support,
Defendant asserts that it is not a citizen of Missouri, a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the city of St. Louis, Missouri; the Property is in the
city of St. Louis, Missouri; the alleged loss at issue occurred in the city of St. Louis, Missouri; and
that venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff argues that 28 U.S.C. §
1441, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1391, governs this action. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant
maintains a registered agent in Cole County, Missouri and thus is deemed to be a resident of Cole
Country, Missouri under Missouri law. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that by removing this case from the
Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri to the Western District of Missouri without challenging
the propriety of Plaintiff’s choice of venue, Defendant has waived any objection to venue in this
district. The Court will take each argument in turn.
A. 	28 U.S.C. § 1441
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 14

5
It is well established that the general venue provision in § 1391(b) does not apply to cases
that were removed from state court; instead, venue in such cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). See Polizzi v. Cowles Mags., Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 665 (1953) (stating that “on the question
of venue, § 1391 has no application to this case because this is a removed action” and that “[t]he
venue of removed actions is governed by ...28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a)”); St. Clair v. Spigarelli, 348 F.
App'x 190, 192 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Busch, 574 F. Supp. 3d at 679-80 (W.D. Mo. 2021)
(“As a removal action, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) establishes the proper venue, not § 1391(b).”); Schuler
v. SunOpta Food Group LLC, Civil No. 3:07-cv-101, 2008 WL 4416447, at *2 (D.N.D. Sept. 24,
2008) (“[T]he United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that the general venue provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1391 have no application to a removed action.”) (citing Polizzi, 345 U.S. 665).
Applying § 1441(a) to this case, the Court finds that venue is proper. Section 1441(a)
provides that:
any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.
This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri. The district court of
the United States that embraces Cole County, Missouri is this Court, and the appropriate division
is the Central Division. Thus, venue properly lies in this Court, and the Court cannot dismiss this
case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). For the reasons stated, Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue is DENIED.
B. 	Other Arguments
The Court having found that venue is proper within the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri will decline to analyze Plaintiff’s other arguments regarding venue.
II. 	Motion to Transfer Venue
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 14

6
A. 	Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses
The Court will first evaluate whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses factor
warrant transferring this case to the Eastern District of Missouri. This inquiry considers sub-factors
that include “‘(1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of the witnesses…, (3) the
accessibility of records and documents, (4) the location where the conduct complained of occurred,
and (5) the applicability of each forum state’s substantive law.’” In re Eyewear Antitrust Litig.,
No. 23-cv-3065 (KMM/JFD), 2024 WL 2956631, at *5 (D. Minn. June 12, 2024) (quoting Terra
Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir. 1997)). The Court will evaluate each
of these subfactors below.
i. 	The Convenience of the Parties
In evaluating the convenience of the parties, courts may consider the location of the two
courthouses and the travel expense that the parties “would likely incur…for airfare, meals and
lodging, and losses in productivity form time spent away from work.” In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d
909, 913 (8th Cir. 2010).
Defendant argues that the only connection or relationship to the Western District of
Missouri is the location of Plaintiff’s counsel, whose office is located in Kansas City, Missouri.
Defendant argues that convenience of the attorneys is a fairly insignificant factor in the
determination of the propriety of transfer to another district or division. Defendant argues that
given that Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District of Missouri, it is clear that the Eastern District
of Missouri is the most convenient venue for the parties. Plaintiff argues that the convenience of
the parties’ factor does not support transfer in this case. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is a national
insurance company with substantial resources to litigate in either district. Plaintiff further argues
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 14

7
that Defendant has not demonstrated any undue hardship that would result from litigating this
matter in the Western District of Missouri.
The Court finds that the convenience of the parties subfactor weights in favor of transfer
to the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff is the owner of the Property located in St. Louis,
Missouri. Plaintiff resides within the Eastern District of Missouri and Defendant’s principal place
of business is in Northbrook, Illinois. No party to this litigation is a resident of the Western District
of Missouri. Further, when looking at the locations of both Plaintiff and Defendant in relation to
the Courthouse in Springfield, Missouri to that of the Courthouse for the Eastern District of
Missouri in St. Louis, Missouri, the convenience of the parties clearly weighs in favor of the
Eastern District of Missouri. For this reason, the Court finds this subfactor factor weighs in favor
of transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
ii. 	The Convenience of the Witnesses
“The convenience of the witnesses is an important factor for the court since it determines
the relative ease of access to sources of proof.” Oien v. Thompson, 824 F. Supp. 2d 898, 904 (D.
Minn. 2010) (quoting Graff v. Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 33 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1121 (D. Minn.
1999)). However, “[w]hen looking at the convenience of witnesses, courts distinguish between
party witnesses and non-party witnesses [because] [c]ourts generally assume that witnesses who
are within a party's control, such as employees, will appear voluntarily, even in a distant forum. In
re Eyewear, 2024 WL 2956631, at *7 (citing Bae Sys., 124 F. Supp. 3d 878 at 885) and Klatte v.
Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc., 995 F. Supp. 2d 951, 955 (D. Minn. 2014)).
Defendant argues that the most convenient forum for the witnesses is the Eastern District
of Missouri. Defendant asserts this case arises out of an insurance claim involving alleged loss and
damage to Plaintiff’s residence, which is situated in St. Louis County, Missouri. Further,
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 14

8
Defendant argues that the potential witnesses include Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s neighbors, and Plaintiff’s
original contractor(s). Defendant asserts that none of these possible witnesses are located in the
Western District of Missouri and therefore the convenience of witnesses and fairness strongly
favors transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
Plaintiff argues that the convenience of the witnesses’ favor does not support transfer in
this case. Plaintiff argues that Defendant only references potential witnesses, such as neighbors,
that they may seek identification of through discovery and that Defendant has not demonstrated
that the witnesses would be significantly inconvenienced by litigation in the Western District of
Missouri. Further, Plaintiff argues that many if not all of Defendant’s employees or agents are
likely to reside out of state and will have to travel for litigation or appear remotely. Plaintiff also
asserts that in insurance disputes, like the current case, key witnesses often include adjusters,
contractors, and experts who routinely travel as part of their professional duties and that these
witnesses would not be unduly burdened by appearing in the Western District of Missouri.
The Court finds that the convenience of the witnesses subfactor weighs in favor of transfer
to the Eastern District of Missouri. While no witnesses have yet to be declared in this action, it is
readily apparent to the Court that those witnesses that will be called will be located primarily in or
around the St. Louis area. As the Defendant has pointed out, the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s neighbors and
Plaintiff’s original contractors are all likely to be situated in St. Louis, Missouri. The same cannot
be said for any potential witness within the Western District of Missouri. As such, the Court finds
that for the convenience of the witnesses, this subfactor weighs if favor of transfer to the Eastern
District of Missouri.
iii. 	The Accessibility of Records and Documents
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 14

9
Defendant argues this subfactor weigh in favor of transfer, since every potential witness
works or lives in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Further, Defendant argues that the property at
issue is situated in St. Louis County, Missouri and is the best physical evidence or proof as to the
alleged loss and damage and is the subject of this litigation. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is a
foreign corporation and any discovery that it conducts will be from its corporate offices or principal
place of business. Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has already inspected the subject property
and provides no argument that it would not be able to conduct further inspections of the subject
property because this case is litigated in the Western District of Missouri. Plaintiff further argues
that documents can be easily shared electronically and depositions can be conducted remotely and
thus this subfactor should not weigh in favor of transfer.
The Court finds this subfactor as neutral. Although records and documents may become
relevant in the course of this litigation, there is nothing in the record that would indicate that these
documents would need to be inspected in person or physically produced. The Court agrees with
Plaintiff that documents and records can be easily shared electronically and that at this time this
subfactor does not weigh in support or opposition of transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
For the reasons stated, the Court finds this subfactor is neutral.
iv. 	The Location Where the Conduct Complained of Occurred
When weighing a discretionary transfer, courts emphasize the location where the conduct
complaint of occurred. “It is generally appropriate to transfer an action to the district that is the
locus of operative facts.” Cosmetic Warriors Ltd. v. Abrahamson, 723 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1108 (D.
Minn. 2010) (citing GMAC/Residential Funding Corp. v. Platinum Co. of Real Estate & Fin.
Servs., Inc., No. 02-cv-1224 (RHK/AJB), 2003 WL 1572007, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2003)); see
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 9 of 14

10
also GMAC, 2003 WL 1572007, at *2 (“[A] motion to transfer to the district in which the
[operative] events occurred is likely to succeed.”).
The parties agree that the Property, the damage to the property, and the assessment of
damages were all completed in St. Louis, Missouri. As such, this subfactor weights in favor of
transfer as the location where the conduct complained of occurred in St. Louis, Missouri which is
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
v. 	The Applicability of Each Forum State’s Substantive Law
This case stems from an insurance policy that was entered into in the State of Missouri and
which the laws of Missouri will govern the dispute at issue. As the Motion to Transfer asks this
Court to transfer from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the
Eastern District of Missouri, there would be no change in the state’s substantive law in this matter.
For this reason, the Court finds this subfactor is neutral.
Overall, when looking at the subfactors, the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and the
location where the conduct complained of occurred all weigh in favor of transfer to the Eastern
District of Missouri while the other two subfactors are neutral. Thus, when evaluating whether the
convenience of the parties and witnesses factor weigh in favor of transfer to the Eastern District of
Missouri, the Court finds it does. For this reason, the convenience of the parties and witnesses
factor weigh in favor of transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
B. 	Interests of Justice
Courts weight the interests of justice factor by considering subfactors that include judicial
economy, the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the cost to the parties of litigating in either forum, the
ability to enforce a judgment, barriers to a fair trial, any issues with conflict of law, and advantages
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 10 of 14

11
of having local courts determine local law. See Terra Int’l, 119 F.3d at 696. The Court will evaluate
each subfactor below.
i. 	Judicial Economy
Defendant argues that the Eastern District of Missouri offers the best change of compelling
the in-person attendance at trial for witnesses in this case and that access to evidence and
compulsory process would be better served in the Eastern District of Missouri. Defendant argues
that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 places limits on the distance a subpoena requires a potential
witness to travel for deposition or trial. Specifically, Defendant argues that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45(c)(3)(A) precludes subpoenas, without a Court order, that require witnesses to travel
more than 100 miles for deposition or trial testimony. Thus, Defendant argues that the availability
of the judicial process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses strongly favors transfer to
the Eastern District of Missouri. Lastly, Defendant argues that discovery has not yet begun in this
case and transferring this case will not delay or prejudice the Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that this
subfactor does not strongly favor transfer in this case and that transferring this case would only
delay resolution and increase the costs for both parties.
The Court finds that judicial economy weighs in favor of transfer to the Eastern District of
Missouri. No discovery has been made in this case and there would not be any meaningful delay
should this case be transferred. Further, Defendant is correct regarding Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45(c)(3)’s limitation regarding where a subpoena may commend a person to attend a
trial, hearing, or deposition. Considering that there would be no delay with the proceedings and
the limitations as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the Court finds that this subfactor
weighs in favor of transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
ii. 	Plaintiff’s Chosen Forum
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 11 of 14

12
“In general, federal courts give considerable deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum and
thus the party seeking a transfer under section 1404(a) typically bears the burden of proving that a
transfer is warranted.” Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 695 (8th Cir. 1997).
This general practice of according deference, however, is based on an assumption that the
plaintiff’s choice will be a convenient one. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255–56, 102
S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to less deference when the
Plaintiff is not a resident of the selected forum, and when the underlying events giving rise to the
action occurred outside the forum. Defendant argues that since the alleged actions underlying the
claims at issue here occurred exclusively in St. Louis County, Missouri, the Court should accord
no deference at all to Plaintiff’s decision to bring suit in the Western District of Missouri. Plaintiff
argues that his choice of forum deserves substantial deference. Plaintiff states that he originally
chose to file this action in Cole County, Missouri, which is within the Western District of Missouri.
Plaintiff argues that courts have consistently held that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to
significant weight in the venue analysis and thus should weigh against transfer in this case.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s chosen forum weighs against transfer in this case. As stated
above, Plaintiff properly filed his Complaint within the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri.
When Defendant removed this action to this Court, venue was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1441. While the facts of this case clearly indicate that operative facts giving rise to this litigation
occurred in St. Louis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is still entitled to deference on his chosen forum.
For the reasons stated, the Court finds this subfactor weighs against transfer to the Eastern District
of Missouri.
iii. 	Cost to Parties
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 12 of 14

13
The Defendant does not make an argument as to this subfactor. Plaintiff argues that
transferring this case would only delay resolution and increase costs for both parties. The Court
finds that the cost to the parties is minimal and that this subfactor is neutral. As discussed earlier,
discovery has not started in this case, and little has been done up to this point that would affect the
cost to the parties. Whether this case stays in the Western District of Missouri or is transferred to
the Eastern District of Missouri there would be minimal cost to either party in this action. For that
reason, the Court finds that this subfactor is neutral.
iv. 	Other Subfactors
Here, the parties do not make any arguments regarding the ability to enforce a judgment,
barriers to a fair trial, issues with conflict of law, and advantages of having local courts determine
local law. As this is a case regarding a dispute about the damages suffered to the Property and the
cost associated with fixing those damages pursuant to an insurance policy, the Court finds that
these other subfactors are not significant in this case and do not weigh in favor or against the
transfer of this case to the Eastern District of Missouri.
Overall, when looking at the subfactors, judicial economy weighs in favor of transfer to
the Eastern District of Missouri, Plaintiff’s choice of forum weighs against transfer, and all other
subfactors are neutral. Thus, when evaluating whether the interest of justice factor weighs in favor
of transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri, the Court finds this factor is neutral. In sum, the
Defendant has shown that this case would better served in the Eastern District of Missouri.
Although Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled weight, this analysis shows that this case will
benefit the parties, witnesses and judicial economy in the Eastern District of Missouri where it
could have been brought originally. For these reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to
Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Missouri.
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 13 of 14

14
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue is
DENIED. Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. This case is hereby
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026 	/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-04013-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 14 of 14