Behrens v. Arconic, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2664 |
| Citation | 487 F.Supp.3d 283 |
| Parties | Kristen BEHRENS, Esq., as Administratrix, et al. v. ARCONIC, INC., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Jeffrey P. Goodman, Samuel B. Dordick, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, Philadelphia, PA, Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Chicago, IL, Mark Abramowitz, Mark A. DiCello, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Mentor, OH, for Kristen Behrens.
Jason C. Murray, Abigail M. Hinchcliff, Sean C. Grimsley, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Denver, CO, Joseph Kernen, Nancy Shane Rappaport, Ilana H. Eisenstein, Timothy P. Pfenninger, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Richard F. Hans, DLA Piper LLP (US), New York, NY, for Arconic, Inc.
MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In the early morning hours of June 14, 2017, a fire was sparked in Flat 16 of the Grenfell Tower, a high-rise apartment building in West London. The fire started in a fridge-freezer located in the kitchen of Flat 16. Kitchen fires are not uncommon, and this fire should have been contained within the apartment. Firefighters responded quickly and extinguished the flames in Flat 16 within minutes. Unfortunately, by that time the fire had already escaped and reached the combustible cladding that covered the outer façade of the entire Tower. Once the fire was established in the cladding, it quickly raced up the east side of the building and got to the roof. The flames then spread down and back up the outer walls of the structure. In under three hours, the entire Grenfell Tower was engulfed in flames.
Seventy-one people perished in the Grenfell Tower fire the night of June 14, 2017. An additional resident who escaped the fire and suffered from smoke inhalation died months later. Hundreds of residents and visitors present in the Tower the night of the fire experienced profound physical, psychological, and emotional injuries. The fire burned for more than sixty hours before firefighters were able to completely extinguish the flames. When the fire finally stopped burning and the sprawling damage was assessed, it was determined that the fire at the Grenfell Tower was Britain's deadliest residential fire since World War II.
Public outcry was swift. The morning after the fire, then-Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned a Public Inquiry to investigate the fire and its causes. The Public Inquiry, which is chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, divided its work into two phases. Phase 1 was completed in October 2019 and examined the events that occurred the night of June 14, 2017. Phase 2 is currently underway and will focus on the decisions that led to the installation of highly combustible cladding on the Grenfell Tower. The Public Inquiry has proceeded in parallel with criminal investigations conducted by the Metropolitan Police Service ("MPS").
Civil complaints arising out of the Grenfell Tower fire have also been filed—both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. This case is a products liability action brought by the estates of sixty-nine individuals who perished in the Grenfell Tower fire and 177 injured survivors (both individuals who experienced injuries as a result of the fire and individuals whose spouses lost their lives in the fire). Plaintiffs allege that various American companies—Arconic, Inc. (formerly Alcoa Inc.); Arconic Architectural Products, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation (collectively, "Defendants")—supplied defective products to the Grenfell Tower that exacerbated the severity of the fire. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages under Pennsylvania law.
Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens (or "FNC").2 Defendants argue this case should be dismissed and should instead be litigated in the United Kingdom (or "UK"),3 which is where the fire occurred, where the Plaintiffs resided, where a large trove of the relevant evidence and witnesses are located, and where personal injury actions have been and will be filed against other potentially responsible parties. Plaintiffs resist dismissal for FNC, arguing that this case should be litigated here because, among other reasons, Pennsylvania and the United States have an interest in punishing and deterring the tortious corporate conduct of American companies. The parties have exhaustively, and admirably, litigated this difficult and complex motion.
From the outset of this case, Plaintiffs have been given considerable leeway in securing discovery that is relevant to forum non conveniens. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the evidence that was produced during FNC discovery and considered all of the arguments made by the parties in the extensive FNC briefing and at oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the UK is the proper forum to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens will be granted subject to specific conditions and Plaintiffs’ Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
The Grenfell Tower, which was built in 1974, stands at over 220 feet tall. (ECF 74, Phase 1 Report ("P1R") ¶¶ 3.1; 3.9.) The Grenfell Tower is owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ("RBKC") and managed by the RBKC Tenant Management Organization ("TMO"). (Id. ¶¶ 3.1; 3.8.) Most of the residential flats in the Grenfell Tower were occupied by participants in the RBKC's social housing program. (Id. ¶ 3.6.) Some of these tenants had grown up in North Kensington and others came to Britain as refugees. (Id. ¶ 3.7.)
The Grenfell Tower underwent a significant refurbishment from 2012–2016. The client for the refurbishment was the TMO, and the funds were provided by the RBKC. (Id. ¶ 6.4.) The architect for the main refurbishment was Studio E. (Id. ¶ 6.3.) Rydon Maintenance Limited ("Rydon") was appointed as the "design and build contractor" for the project. (Id. ) The cladding subcontractor to Rydon was Harley Facades Ltd. ("Harley"). (Id. ¶ 6.2.) CEP Architectural Facades Ltd. ("CEP") was the fabricator for the refurbishment, and as fabricator CEP was responsible for cutting and shaping the aluminum sheets used for the cladding into the specifications provided by the architect. (Id. ¶ 6.12.) Exova provided specialist fire engineering services. (Id. ¶ 6.3.)
One of the main components of the refurbishment program was the installation of a new rainscreen cladding system on floors four to twenty-three of the Tower. (Id. ¶ 6.7.) The rainscreen panels "were manufactured as plain sheets by [AAP SAS]" and were known as " ‘Reynobond 55 PE’ Aluminum Composite Panels (ACP)." (Id. ¶ 6.12.) Each panel "consisted of a 3mm thick core of polyethylene bonded between two 0.5mm thick sheets of aluminum." (Id. ) The aluminum panels were "fabricated into cassettes for use at Grenfell Tower by CEP." (Id. )
Other changes that were part of the refurbishment included the installation of new insulation, specifically Celotex RS5000 polyisocyanurate (PIR) polymer foam, (id. ¶ 6.17), new windows, (id. ¶ 6.24),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ISO PUBLISHES THE ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY STANDARD.
...the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." FED. R. CIV. P. 1. (92.) Behrens v. Arconic, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 3d 283, 326 (E.D. Pa. 2020) ("No matter where this case proceeds, there will be complicated questions of access to cross-border (93.) This Article......