The plaintiff moved to California, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and sued over asbestos exposure that allegedly occurred about 50 years before in Oklahoma. A California court held that California's statute of limitations should govern the suit, rather than Oklahoma's 10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property.
The NAM supported this appeal with an amicus brief arguing that the ruling disregards Oklahoma's interest in drawing a balance between consumers who suffer an injury, the need for all consumers to have access to affordable goods and services, the need for businesses to operate under fair and predictable liability law rules, and the state's interest in stimulating investment and economic growth. The trial court's ruling undercuts the predictability and certainty of laws that companies rely on when making business decisions, including how to price their products and how much insurance to buy. It encourages out-of-state plaintiffs to continue to flock to California courts to file asbestos and other types of hazardous material exposure cases long after most states would prohibit them.
Fortunately, on February 18, 2010, the California Supreme Court reversed. It ruled that Oklahoma law should apply, since that state's interest in having its statute of repose applied outweighed California's interest. Weighing in the balance in favor of the manufacturer was the court's view that a state law limiting liability for commercial activity conducted within the state in order to provide fair treatment and incentives for business enterprises, applies equally to both in-state and out-of-state companies that conduct business in the state. This is a favorable ruling that will help prevent forum shopping by claimants whose claims have long since been extinguished under state law.