Dismissal of action on basis of forum non conveniens must be on conditions that protect plaintiff's procedural rights

Law Reporter, Nov 1998

Kennecott Holdings Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 578 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 1998).

The Supreme Court of Minnesota held the dismissal of an action based on forum non conveniens must be granted under conditions that protect a plaintiff's Minnesota procedural rights, including the statute of limitations.

Here, a group of Delaware corporations with corporate headquarters and principal places of business in Utah brought an environmental-coverage action in Minnesota against several insurers. Defendants moved for dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing Utah would be a more convenient forum.

The trial court granted defendants' motion and conditioned dismissal on defendants' waiving defenses based on personal jurisdiction, process, and statutes of limitations that did not exist when plaintiff filed its action in Minnesota. The intermediate appellate court held the trial court had abused its discretion because its ruling subjected plaintiff to a Utah statute of limitations defense that may have run by the filing date but which plaintiff would not have been subject to in Minnesota. Accordingly, the court modified the conditional dismissal to preserve the same procedural rights, including the statute of limitations, that plaintiff had when it filed its action in Minnesota.

Affirming the intermediate appellate court, the state high court noted forum non conveniens is an equitable principle based largely on the parties' convenience and other considerations that in no way reflect on the plaintiff's right to choose Minnesota as its forum for litigation. Although application of the forum non conveniens doctrine will rarely be conditioned on protecting a plaintiff from a change in the substantive law where those rights might be different in the alternative forum, the court said a party's procedural right should not yield to convenience. Plaintiff's Counsel:

*Terrence E. Bishop, Bloomington, Minn. James B. Lee,

Francis M. Wikstron, and

Hal J. Pos, all of Salt Lake City, Utah

[ Comment: See Cheeseman v Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997), 40 ATLA L. Rep. 394 (Dec. 1997). There, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that to obtain a transfer of venue, defendant must show plaintiffs' chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious. *Bernard M. Gross, Philadelphia, Pa., represented plaintiffs.]

[Documents in Cheeseman are available through the Court Documents section at p. 356, courtesy of Mr. Gross.]