AUSTIN, Texas—An asbestos injury plaintiff who lived in Maine and contracted mesothelioma there cannot sue 21 companies in Texas in an effort to recover damages more quickly, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled, overturning a lower court.
Litigating in Texas against the companies, including General Electric Co. and Ingersoll Rand Corp., would violate Texas civil code, which was modified in 2003 to assure that cases were tried in the most convenient forum, the state's high court ruled 8-0 on Tuesday.
Plaintiff Austin Richards, who worked more than 30 years in Maine as a mason and routinely handled piping insulation made from asbestos, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2005. He later sued the 21 defendants, all of which manufactured or sold asbestos materials, in Texas state court in Dallas. Three of the defendants are based in Texas.
Seven defendants sought to dismiss the case, arguing that a Texas court was an inconvenient forum. Among other reasons, the defendants argued that traveling to Maine to depose witnesses would be costly and that most evidence and witnesses in the case were outside of Texas courts' subpoena power.
But the plaintiff argued that if the case were moved to Maine, the defendants likely would ask a Maine court to move the case again to a U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, which is overseeing multidistrict asbestos litigation. Mr. Richards argued that moving the case to the multidistrict court would significantly slow the progress of his case and prevent him from recovering damages before he died. Mr. Richards died before the case was argued orally before the Texas Supreme Court in September.
The Texas trial court judge asked the defendants whether they would agree to not seek to move the case to the multidistrict court if he moved the case to Maine. The defendants refused to waive those rights, and the trial judge ultimately refused to move the case to Maine.
Three defendants—GE, Ingersoll and Warren Pumps—appealed.
In In Re General Electric Co. et al., the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court for several reasons.
Among them, the high court noted that the 2003 revisions to the state's civil code require Texas courts to consider several specific factors before ruling on an inconvenient forum motion. If after considering those factors—including whether another forum would provide an adequate remedy and hearing the case in a Texas court would result in "substantial injustice" to the litigant seeking to move the case—the case must be moved, the high court ruled.
The state Supreme Court also noted that delays could occur in any forum a case is heard. And, it said, the multidistrict litigation is designed to resolve cases, not delay them.
The high court, however, refused to consider whether the trial judge abused his discretion by asking the defendants to waive their rights to move the case to the multidistrict court. The high court noted that the trial judge vacated the letter in which he proposed that compromise and did not base his final ruling on that issue.
The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant the defendants' motion to move the case to Maine.
Tell us what you think. Log in below to weigh in on this story.
Copyright © 2010 Crain Communications, Inc.
