Anyango v. Rolls-Royce Corp.
971 N.E.2d 654
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Parents of Isaiah Otieno filed a wrongful-death action in Indiana against Bell Helicopter Textron, Rolls-Royce, and Honeywell for a Canadian helicopter crash.
- The crash occurred in British Columbia, Canada, killing Otieno and three others on May 13, 2008.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C) forum non conveniens, proposing British Columbia as the better forum, and waived certain BC limitations and submitted to BC jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted dismissal in favor of British Columbia after considering convenience, jurisdiction, and anticipated governing law.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate ruling and agreeing to review the forum non conveniens decision.
- The court ultimately held that British Columbia is an available and adequate forum and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is British Columbia an adequate and available forum under Trial Rule 4.4(C)? | Otieno contends BC is inadequate, yielding no adequate remedy. | Defendants argue BC provides an adequate forum with available relief. | Yes; BC is an adequate and available forum. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting dismissal for forum non conveniens? | Otieno asserts the court misapplied factors and erred in weighing remedy adequacy. | Rolls-Royce et al. argue the court properly balanced the factors under TR 4.4(C). | No; no abuse of discretion. |
| Should Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno guide the weighing of potential changes in law when considering forum non conveniens? | Otieno relies on potential enhanced damages in Indiana favoring relocation. | Defendants urge ruling aligned with Piper that change in law is not controlling unless remedy is clearly inadequate. | Adopts Piper guidance; potential change in law not controlling absent an inadequate remedy. |
| Does the possibility of a less favorable substantive law in the alternative forum defeat dismissal? | Otieno argues that a less favorable BC law would foreclose relief or reduce remedies. | Defendants contend such potential differences do not bar dismissal where BC provides an adequate remedy. | No; remedy adequacy suffices; not barred by potential law differences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (change in law should not ordinarily drive forum non conveniens; adequate remedy in alternative forum suffices)
- McCracken v. Eli Lilly & Co., 494 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (alternative forum adequate if plaintiff not deprived of remedy despite differences)
- Ledingham v. Parke-Davis Div. of Warner-Lambert Co., 628 F.Supp. 1447 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (adequacy defined; Canada can be adequate forum where remedy not totally denied)
- Dowling v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 727 F.2d 608 (6th Cir.1984) (adequacy considerations in forum non conveniens; remedy not clearly inadequate)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (flexibility and discretion essential in forum non conveniens)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (forum non conveniens described as common-law doctrine; relationship to state law)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (reiterated; consideration of potential unfavorable change in law generally not controlling)