SER Ford Motor Co. v. Hon. David W. Nibert, Judge
773 S.E.2d 1
W. Va.2015Background
- In 2012 a Michigan accident in which a 1999 Ford Expedition rolled over injured Michigan-resident plaintiffs; two children died. The vehicle was designed and manufactured in Michigan and was sold by a West Virginia dealership in 1999 but later sold to the plaintiffs in Michigan in 2008.
- Plaintiffs sued Ford and Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., in Roane County, West Virginia, asserting strict products-liability and related tort claims; defendants moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens under W. Va. Code § 56-1-1a.
- Defendants argued Michigan was the clearly preferable forum (most witnesses, evidence, design/manufacture situs, and plaintiffs reside in Michigan); Jack Garrett Ford consented to jurisdiction in Michigan.
- The circuit court denied the motion, invoking Abbott and finding defendants offered only conclusory evidence and expressing concern about Michigan law reducing presumptions in older-product cases; its order did not set out findings as to each of the eight statutory factors.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court granted prohibition, holding the trial court failed to make the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law required by W. Va. Code § 56-1-1a and this Court’s precedent, and remanded for reconsideration consistent with Mylan and Mace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the correct law in resolving a forum non conveniens motion | Abbott requires specific evidentiary showings; plaintiffs say defendants offered only conclusory allegations | Defendants say trial court misapplied statute §56-1-1a and failed to consider all eight statutory factors | Court held trial court misapplied controlling statute by relying on Abbott and must apply §56-1-1a and precedent (Mylan, Mace) on remand |
| Whether the trial court complied with statutory mandate to state findings for each §56-1-1a factor | Plaintiffs contend circuit court considered factors and Abbott governs | Defendants contend circuit court omitted required findings and conclusions for each statutory factor | Court held trial court failed to set forth required findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the eight factors and remanded |
| Whether Michigan is an adequate alternative forum given differences in substantive law (statute of repose/limitations) | Plaintiffs argue Michigan law would abrogate strict liability and materially deprive remedy | Defendants argue Michigan provides an adequate remedy and defendants are amenable to process there | Court held that mere differences in substantive law are not dispositive; trial court must determine whether the alternate forum’s remedy is so inadequate as to be no remedy at all (apply Mace/Mylan) |
| Whether dismissal is required here on convenience grounds given the case connections to Michigan | Plaintiffs emphasize forum deference and Abbott; argue defendants failed with evidence | Defendants point to locus of accident, witnesses, medical care, design/manufacture and plaintiffs’ residence in Michigan | Court did not decide ultimate forum question; remanded for the trial court to evaluate all eight factors and enter specific findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 191 W.Va. 198, 444 S.E.2d 285 (W. Va. 1994) (discusses forum non conveniens burden and plaintiffs’ choice of forum)
- State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641, 713 S.E.2d 356 (W. Va. 2011) (interpreting §56-1-1a and requiring courts to consider the statute’s eight factors)
- Mace v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 227 W.Va. 666, 714 S.E.2d 223 (W. Va. 2011) (addresses existence and adequacy of alternate forum under §56-1-1a)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (alternative forum’s substantive law differences may be relevant only when they eliminate any remedy)
- Cannelton Indus., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 1994) (forum non conveniens reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Tsapis, 184 W.Va. 231, 400 S.E.2d 239 (W. Va. 1990) (forum non conveniens precedent referenced in Abbott)