Anyango v. Rolls–Royce Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 49S04–1207–CT–434.,49S04–1207–CT–434.
• Citation: 971 N.E.2d 654
• Parties: Dalmas Maurice Otieno ANYANGO and Jane Tinna Agola Otieno, as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Isaiah Omondi Otieno, Deceased, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. ROLLS–ROYCE CORPORATION, Honeywell International Inc., and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Appellees (Defendants below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

971 N.E.2d 654

Dalmas Maurice Otieno ANYANGO and Jane Tinna Agola Otieno, as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Isaiah Omondi Otieno, Deceased, Appellants (Plaintiffs below),

v.ROLLS–ROYCE CORPORATION, Honeywell International Inc., and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 49S04–1207–CT–434.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 30, 2012.

Gary C. Robb, Kansas City, MO, Roy T. Tabor, Susan W. Rempert, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.

Edward R. Moor, Thomas H. Neuckranz, Howard Huntington, James Beal, Chicago, IL, Debra A. Mastrian, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.

Nicholas C. Pappas, Darren A. Craig, Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee, Rolls–Royce Corporation.

Steven E. Springer, Crystal G. Rowe, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee, Honeywell International Inc.

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A04–1011–CT–679

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Parents of a young man killed in a bizarre helicopter accident in British Columbia appeal an Indiana trial court's dismissal of their complaint in favor of the Canadian forum, arguing that their claim should be tried here because they would only be entitled to nominal damages under British Columbia law. Because we conclude that British Columbia provides an available and adequate forum under applicable law, and that the trial court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Background

This appeal arises out of an almost unbelievable accident occurring on May 13, 2008, in British Columbia, Canada. On that day, 20–year–old Isaiah Omondi Otieno, a Kenyan citizen and student at the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook, British Columbia, was mailing a letter from Canada to his parents in Kenya when a helicopter flying overhead lost power. The helicopter crashed to the ground and killed Otieno along with the helicopter's pilot and two passengers.

On March 3, 2010, Isaiah's parents, Dalmas Maurice Otieno Anyango and Jane Tinna Agola Otieno (collectively, the “Otienos”), sued Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Rolls–Royce Corp., and Honeywell International Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”), in Marion County, Indiana, for the wrongful death of their son. The Defendants are connected to the helicopter as follows:

• The helicopter was manufactured in Texas in 1974 by Bell Helicopter.

• The helicopter engine was manufactured in Indiana by the Allison Division of General Motors, which sold its assets to a company that was later purchased by Rolls–Royce.

• The helicopter's engine components were designed at Honeywell's facility in Indiana and then manufactured in North Carolina.

The Otienos sought to recover on theories of strict liability and negligence based on the design and manufacture of the helicopter engine and engine component parts and on the failure to certify and recommend safe and proper replacement parts. Subsequently, representatives of the three other people killed in the accident sued the Defendants and others in British Columbia on similar theories.

In June, 2010, the Defendants filed both a motion to dismiss the Otienos' lawsuit pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C) on the ground of forum non conveniens¹—that Indiana was an “inconvenient forum” compared to British Columbia—and a stipulation pursuant to Trial Rule 4.4(D) that they would (a) submit to the personal jurisdiction of and (b) waive any statute of limitations defenses in British Columbia. After considering the evidence and the written and oral arguments of counsel, the trial court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss in favor of British Columbia as the more convenient forum.

The Otienos appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Specifically, the Otienos challenged the trial court's finding that British Columbia provided an adequate forum in which to pursue their cause of action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Anyango v. Rolls–Royce Corp., 953 N.E.2d 1147, 1153 (Ind.Ct.App.2011).

The Otienos seek, and we now grant, transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

Discussion

Trial Rule 4.4(C) governs the dismissal of litigation based on forum non conveniens:

Jurisdiction under this rule is subject to the power of the court to order the litigation to be held elsewhere under such reasonable conditions as the court in its discretion may determine to be just.

In the exercise of that discretion the court may appropriately consider such factors as:

(1) Amenability to personal jurisdiction in this state and in any alternative forum of the parties to the action;

(2) Convenience to the parties and witnesses of the trial in this state in any alternative forum;

(3) Differences in conflict of law rules applicable in this state and in the alternative forum; or

(4) Any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial.

Ind. Trial Rule 4.4(C). The language of the rule itself entrusts this determination to the trial court and so our review of a trial court's dismissal under this rule is limited to abuse of discretion. Freemond v. Somma, 611 N.E.2d 684, 690 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (citing Killearn Props., Inc. v. Lambright, 176 Ind.App. 684, 687, 377 N.E.2d 417, 419 (1978)), trans. denied. A trial court abuses its discretion when it “arrives at a conclusion that is clearly against logic and the natural inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Id.²

Both the Defendants and the Otienos submitted rather extensive briefs and evidence to the trial court in support of their respective positions. The trial court also held a hearing on the Defendants' motion. The Defendants argued that this case should be litigated in British Columbia because the events giving rise to the suit occurred there and a parallel suit is pending there. They listed several considerations related to the inconvenience of an Indiana forum: the witnesses are located in Canada; Canadian officials investigated the case and disassembled the engine and engine components at issue; the physical evidence is in Canada; witnesses knowledgeable about damages are located in Canada (or Kenya); obtaining testimony of witnesses, documents, and physical evidence would be limited by the procedures of international discovery; and the case would be governed by Canadian law. In response, the Otienos argued that the bulk of the evidence related to their product-liability action is in the United States (and in Indiana in particular) and that, if tried in Indiana, the case would not be governed by Canadian law. Moreover, using the language of Trial Rule 4.4(C), they argued that it would not be “just” to require them to litigate this case in British Columbia because their action would not be economically viable there. Specifically, they contended that under applicable British Columbia law, “no monetary compensation would be permitted other than recovery of burial or funeral expenses.” Pet. to Transfer i (Questions Presented on Transfer).

Judge Keele's order granting the Defendants' dismissal motion addressed each of the enumerated factors in Trial Rule 4.4(C) as follows:

4. The Defendants have agreed to submit to personal jurisdiction in British Columbia, Canada. See [Ind. Trial] Rule 4.4(C)(1). The Defendants have agreed to waive or toll any applicable Canadian statute of limitations in British Columbia, Canada until Plaintiffs have had reasonable opportunity to file their claims in British Columbia, Canada, not to exceed 120 days from the date of this ruling.

5. Many witnesses reside in British Columbia, Canada and are outside the subpoena power of this Court. Most, if not all, anticipated witnesses which are United States citizens are employees of the Defendants residing in various states within the United States. The Defendants have agreed to make these individuals available for litigation in British Columbia, Canada. On the whole, it would be more convenient, if not necessary, for the parties and witnesses for the claims to be pursued in British Columbia, Canada, rather than in Indiana. See [T.R.] 4.4(C)(2).

6. It is anticipated that the claims will be subject to the substantive law of British Columbia, Canada and not of Indiana. See Simon v. United States, 805 N.E.2d 798 (Ind.2004) [; T.R.] 4.4(C)(3).

7. There are substantial additional factors which weigh in favor of this matter being considered by a Canadian court rather than this Court in Indiana. See [T.R.] 4.4(C)(4)[.] These include:

(a) It is undisputed that the court system in British Columbia, Canada, is adequate and available to Plaintiffs.

(b) There is already litigation pending in British Columbia, Canada, regarding the helicopter crash which seeks compensation for families of the victims.

(c) Rulings and discovery orders by this Court may be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce as to persons outside this Court's jurisdiction.

(d) It is anticipated that there will be significant problems in dealing with resolving the application of Canadian law.

(e) The majority of public interest factors favor resolution of this dispute by a court in British Columbia, Canada. Indiana has little, if any, public interest in the outcome of this litigation.

(f) A foreign citizen that chooses Indiana as a forum rather than his own nation is entitled to a substantially diminished presumption that Indiana is a convenient forum. McCracken v. Eli Lilly & Co., 494 N.E.2d 1289 [ (Ind.Ct.App.1986).]

Appellants' App. 6–7.

In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Otienos challenged only the trial court's finding in paragraph 7(a) above. Specifically, they took issue with the trial court's locution that the availability and adequacy of the British Columbia court system was “undisputed.” They...