This case involves a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court striking down a law enacted by the state legislature intended to prevent non-resident plaintiffs from suing in state courts unless "all or a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim asserted occurred in this state." The law also allows non-residents to sue in West Virginia if they are unable to obtain jurisdiction in another state where the action occurred.
The NAM filed an amicus brief urging U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision. The case arose when a Virginia resident was injured in Virginia while operating a forklift. He sued Crown Equipment, an Ohio Corporation that designed and manufactured the forklift, and a West Virginia company that had distributed and serviced the forklift. The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that no substantial part of the acts at issue occurred in West Virginia.
The NAM’s brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should decide whether West Virginia’s statute is a proper way to prevent forum shopping. Previous Supreme Court decisions have allowed states to give preference in providing access to the courts to residents over non-residents, to prevent overcrowding and financial strains on the court.
The NAM joined with the American Chemistry Council, American Insurance Association, Certainteed Corp., The Dow Chemical Co., Mobil Corp., Owens-Illinois, Inc. and U.S. Steel Corp. in the brief.
On December 11, 2006, the Supreme Court declined to review this case.