Bettwy, C. v. American Premier Underwriters
1039 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Appellant Charles E. Bettwy sued Penn Central (American Premier Underwriters) and Conrail under FELA in Philadelphia County, alleging workplace toxic exposures (1967–1998) caused bladder cancer.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to Blair County under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) (forum non conveniens); trial court granted transfer and denied reconsideration; appellant appealed.
- Defendants relied primarily on an affidavit from Rodney Tatum (claims manager) stating appellant, former supervisors, co-workers, and treating physicians are located in Blair County and that trial would last ~2 weeks.
- Appellant submitted affidavits from five former co-workers (three retired) stating travel to Philadelphia would not be burdensome; appellant also planned to subpoena five former executives, most residing in the Philadelphia area.
- Trial court focused on witness locations and concluded Blair County provided easier access to witnesses; Superior Court reviewed whether the transfer complied with Rule 1006(d)(1) standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in transferring venue under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) | Bettwy: transfer motion was untimely and defendants failed to show Philadelphia forum would be oppressive or vexatious; witnesses can travel and some defense witnesses are retired and not burdened | Defendants: appellant and relevant witnesses live/work in Blair County; medical providers and most fact witnesses are in Blair County, so Blair offers easier access and reduces burden/costs | Vacated transfer: defendants did not meet heavy burden—affidavit lacked detailed facts showing travel would be oppressive; trial court failed to weigh plaintiff's executive witnesses and other conveniences; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (plaintiff's forum choice entitled to weighty consideration; moving party bears heavy burden and must show hardships on the record)
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (defendant meets burden by showing forum was vexatious or oppressive with supporting facts)
- Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 160 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1960) (plaintiff ordinarily controls forum choice if jurisdiction proper)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (trial courts have considerable discretion to balance factors in Rule 1006(d)(1) motions)
- Lee v. Thrower, 102 A.3d 1018 (Pa. Super. 2014) (no single factor dispositive; need factual showing of disruption or hardship)