AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:11-cv-00247

HNA sought relief in two related civil actions (2009 and 2011 Litigation) against multiple insurers in the U.S. District Court and defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
HDI-Gerling and New Hampshire filed second and related motions arguing England is an adequate alternate forum for the cross-claims involving follow-form excess policies LH9813535, LH9813364, and LH9813458.
The court previously denied an initial HDI-Gerling motion in 2010, found England potentially adequate but not for all defendants, and noted discovery and Hague Convention procedures were available for foreign testimony.
The High Court in London had concluded that the second excess policy LH9813364 involved implied English-law and that England was appropriate for relief, prompting renewed arguments before this court.
The court applied Windt v. Qwest, Lacey v. Cessna, and Gulf Oil framework, gave deference to HNA’s forum choice, and considered private and public interest factors across the 2009 and 2011 Litigations, ultimately denying dismissal motions.
The court concluded that England is an adequate forum but that HNA’s home forum and the factors weighed in favor of maintaining the cases in this district; thus, the motions to dismiss were denied with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of adequate alternative forum	England is adequate for some claims, but not for all cross-claims against movants.	England is an adequate forum for the claims, facilitating proper resolution of the policy issues.	England is adequate; but not dispositive; not alone warranting dismissal.
Deference to plaintiff's forum choice	HNA’s Pennsylvania forum should be given great deference as a home forum for a U.S. company.	HNA is foreign-in-origin and forum-shopping; deference should be limited.	Great deference to HNA’s choice; defers to domestic forum unless factors weigh heavily for dismissal.
Private interest factors weight	Most relevant evidence and witnesses are in the U.S.; discovery already substantial; costs manageable with Hague Convention.	Key witnesses and proof in the U.K.; discovery burdens differ; efficiency favors England.	Private factors weigh in favor of preserving the U.S. forum for these actions.
Public interest factors weight	Local controversy and U.S. governing law considerations favor this forum; no systemic administrative burden.	Administrative difficulties and choice-of-law considerations could favor England.	Public factors weigh heavily in favor of maintaining the U.S. forum.

Windt v. Quest Communications International, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (forum non conveniens standard; case-by-case balancing of private/public factors)
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1981) (adequate forum; deference balancing; subtleties of conflict-of-laws)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (Supreme Court 1947) (enumeration of private/public interest factors)
Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. 1991) (burden on movant; strong preponderance required to dismiss)
In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La. on July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987) (awaiting case-specific standard for forum non conveniens)