On 04/10/07, the NAM joined with other business organizations to file an amicus brief urging the Texas Supreme Court to send an asbestos exposure case to Maine, where all of the case-specific witnesses and evidence were located, instead of Texas, where none of the events occurred. Plaintiff had filed suit against numerous product manufacturers and distributors in Texas, which has historically been a magnet for asbestos cases from around the county. The alleged asbestos exposure here, however, occurred over 2,000 miles away in Maine.
Defendants reasonably sought dismissal of the lawsuit in Texas based on forum non conveniens (“inconvenient forum”). Despite recognizing that the case really did not belong in Texas, the Texas district court denied the defendants’ motion. The court feared that a proceeding in Maine would wind up in a federal multi-district forum, which it felt was inadequate for asbestos claimants. The NAM argued, however, that the court’s fear of the plaintiff’s claim falling into a “black hole” was unfounded, as federal courts have resolved almost 70% (nearly 75,000 out of 110,000) of multi-district asbestos cases.
We argued that allowing cases to proceed in a forum that has almost no connection to the parties and absolutely no connection to any evidence is an injustice and violates the doctrine of forum non conveniens. One negative consequence is forum shopping, which puts an added strain on a particular state’s courts and juries.
In a landmark decision on 12/5/08, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Texas’ forum non conveniens statute not only limited the trial court’s discretion to hear this case but in fact required the trial court not to hear it. Factors to be considered are the availability and adequacy of an alternate forum, as well as the fairness and efficiency of hearing the case in the available jurisdictions. This ruling will greatly limit the ability of plaintiffs to forum shop and to bring non-Texas claims in Texas.