Because North Dakota has one of the nation's longest statutes of limitations, plaintiffs increasingly go there to file product liability suits that otherwise time-barred. In this case, the state's Supreme Court looked at whether the substantive law that applies is the law of North Dakota, or the state with the most significant connection to the claims.
The NAM joined with other business associations in an amicus brief arguing that North Dakota should adopt the traditional position that applies the statute of limitations of the state in which the plaintiff's claims arose, and that allowing long-stale claims under state law would inundate its courts with stale claims from other states. There is no reason for the state to tarnish its good legal reputation by endorsing "blatant forum shopping and saddling North Dakota courts, taxpayers, and jurors with the heavy burden of hosting out-of-state litigation 'tourists.'"
The Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act (UCLLA) is designed to prevent this kind of gamesmanship and abuse. In addition, this is an asbestos liability case, and the history of asbestos litigation clearly demonstrates that nonresident claims flow to jurisdictions that develop reputations for favorable procedures and a willingness to accept nonresident claims. Then North Dakota can be expected to be a dumping ground for stale cases from other states.
On Feb. 18, 2011, the court agreed, ruling that the UCLLA placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show that the other state did not provide a fair opportunity to sue. Allocating the burden of proof in this way is appropriate since only the plaintiffs know what limitations there might be on the facts or their claims in the other state. This is a positive development that will help to prevent inappropriate litigation in states with plaintiff-friendly statutes.