State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Nibert

• Decision Date: 09 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–0766.,14–0766.
• Citation: 235 W.Va. 235,773 S.E.2d 1
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; and Does 1–50 Inclusive, Petitioners v. The Honorable David W. NIBERT, Judge of the Circuit Court of Roane County; and Christie Siegel, individually and as Successor–In–Interest to the Estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Marc Siegel, individually and as Successor–In–Interest to the Estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Dawn Siegel, an individual; Erica Fox, an individual; Christopher Fox, an individual; Brooklyn Siegel, by and through her Guardian Marc Siegel; and Madison Owens, by and through her Guardian, Dawn Siegel, Respondents.

235 W.Va. 235

773 S.E.2d 1

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; and Does 1–50 Inclusive, Petitioners

v.The Honorable David W. NIBERT, Judge of the Circuit Court of Roane County; and Christie Siegel, individually and as Successor–In–Interest to the Estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Marc Siegel, individually and as Successor–In–Interest to the Estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Dawn Siegel, an individual; Erica Fox, an individual; Christopher Fox, an individual; Brooklyn Siegel, by and through her Guardian Marc Siegel; and Madison Owens, by and through her Guardian, Dawn Siegel, Respondents.

No. 14–0766.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Jan. 14, 2015.

Decided April 9, 2015.

Gregory G. Garre, Esq., Michael E. Bern, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael Bonasso, Esq., William Hanna, Esq., Bradley J. Schmalzer, Esq., Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Petitioners.

T. Keith Gould, Esq., The Miley Legal Group, Clarksburg, WV, for Respondents.

Opinion

WORKMAN, Chief Justice:

This original jurisdiction action is before the Court upon a petition for writ of prohibition brought by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., (both entities referred to collectively as “the Petitioners”) seeking to prohibit the Honorable David W. Nibert, Judge of the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, from taking any further action in the case below and from denying the Petitioners' motion to dismiss the case based upon forum non conveniens. Having considered the parties' briefs and arguments and the appendix record, we find that the circuit court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a (2012). Therefore, the Court grants the writ as moulded and remands the case for further action consistent with this opinion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

According to the allegations in the Complaint, in 1999, Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., sold a 1999 model Ford Expedition to an unidentified individual from the dealership located in Spencer, West Virginia. The vehicle was designed by Ford in Dearborn, Michigan, and manufactured by Ford in Wayne, Michigan.¹ Moreover, Ford has its principal place of business in Michigan. In 2006, years after the initial sale, the Expedition was sold to a Michigan resident not identified in the litigation. Approximately two years later, in 2008, the vehicle again was sold in the State of Michigan by a Michigan resident to the Respondents,² who were the plaintiffs below³ and also Michigan residents.

On June 22, 2012, an accident occurred in which the subject Expedition, which was being operated by the Respondent Dawn Siegel, rolled-over multiple times after swerving to avoid hitting a Honda Odyssey that had made contact with the Expedition. The operator of the Honda Odyssey fled the scene in the vehicle. Neither the Honda Odyssey, nor its driver, were located until days later. At the time of the accident, Mrs. Siegel and her six children and step-children were in the Expedition. Two children were killed in the accident. The other family members suffered serious injuries to heads, arms and legs, as well as significant bruising.

On February 12, 2014, the Respondents filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, asserting claims against Ford, Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., Kristin Kae Boss, the Ohio driver of the Honda Odyssey that struck the Respondents' car, and Prestige Delivery Systems (“Prestige”), Ms. Boss's employer. In the Complaint, the Respondents allege various torts against Ford and/or Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., including strict products liability based upon manufacturing and design defects in the Expedition.

Ford, Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., and Prestige jointly moved to dismiss the civil action based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens as set forth in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a. The Petitioners, analyzing each of the eight factors set forth in the statute, argued that Michigan was the correct forum for the litigation and that West Virginia had “little to no nexus to the subject matter in controversy in this case.”

The Respondents then bifurcated their claims by filing a separate complaint against Prestige and Ms. Boss in the State of Ohio, while maintaining this action against Ford and Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., in West Virginia. The Respondents voluntarily dismissed Prestige and Ms. Boss from the instant action.⁴

On May 2, 2014, the Respondents filed their opposition to the Petitioners' motion to dismiss, relying upon syllabus point two of Abbott v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp., 191 W.Va. 198, 444 S.E.2d 285 (1994), which provides:

“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is available to courts of record in this State. The doctrine accords a preference to the plaintiff's choice of forum, but the defendant may overcome this preference by demonstrating that the forum has only a slight nexus to the subject matter of the suit and that another available forum exists which would enable the case to be tried substantially more inexpensively and expeditiously. To the extent that Gardner v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., , 372 S.E.2d 786 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1132, 103 L.Ed.2d 193 (1989), declined to apply this doctrine, it is overruled.” Syl. pt. 3, Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. Tsapis, 184 W.Va. 231, 400 S.E.2d 239 (1990).

(Some emphasis added). Based upon the foregoing language in Abbott, the Respondents maintained that “the West Virginia Supreme Court has required a moving party to offer specific evidence that another forum is substantially more convenient and inexpensive.” Further, relying upon the holding in Abbott that “[i]n order for this Court to review a trial court's decision regarding the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, it is necessary for the trial court to provide a record in sufficient detail which will show the basis of its decision[,]” 191 W.Va. at 204, 444 S.E.2d at 291, the Respondents argued that the Petitioners offered “[m]ere allegations and conclusions,” as support for their motion and failed to support it with any evidence.

The circuit court conducted a hearing on the Petitioners' motion on May 8, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court requested that the parties submit proposed orders. On July 3, 2014, the circuit court entered the Respondents' proposed order denying the Petitioners' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the circuit court found “the reasoning of Abbott persuasive” and “controlling.” Thus, applying the law enunciated in Abbott, the court determined that the Petitioners not only “failed to provide any substantive evidence that West Virginia was substantially more inconvenient and expensive than the alternate forum[,]” but also “merely relied on conclusory allegations in their pleading.” The circuit court further found that the Petitioners failed: 1) “to identify a single witness who believed West Virginia is unfairly burdensome or a witness who refuses to appear in West Virginia[;]” 2) to show that they were “substantially limited in their ability to present evidence or witnesses” in West Virginia; 3) “to identify any additional legal expenses incurred by litigating this case in West Virginia [;]” and 4) to “provide any evidence supporting the arguments that this case would burden West Virginia courts.” The circuit court also found that

with respect to remedies available in Michigan, this Court is mindful that Michigan enforces a statute of repose. Michigan's statute of repose requires a plaintiff to prove their case without the benefit of presumptions, like strict liability, if the product has been in use longer than 10 years. The subject vehicle is a 1999 Ford Expedition so Michigan's statute of repose would apply. While not necessarily determinative, Michigan's statute of repose is inconsistent with the principles underlying West Virginia's doctrine of strict products liability, which is critical in protecting West Virginia consumers.

Lastly, the circuit court summarily stated in its order that “in evaluating the factors described in § 56–1–1a, this Court finds that Plaintiffs choice of forum in West Virginia is appropriate as well.” There was no specific evaluation of the eight enumerated factors set forth in West Virginia § 56–1–1a.

II. Standard of Review

This Court has consistently held that “ ‘[p]rohibition will lie to prohibit a judge from exceeding his legitimate powers.’ Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Winter v. MacQueen, 161 W.Va. 30, 239 S.E.2d 660 (1977).” Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641, 713 S.E.2d 356 (2011). In Mylan, in discussing the standard of review applicable to venue disputes, we stated that

[i]n the context of disputes over venue, such as dismissal for forum non conveniens, this Court has previously held that a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy “to resolve the issue of where venue for a civil action lies,” because “the issue of venue [has] the potential of placing a litigant at an unwarranted disadvantage in a pending action and [ ] relief by appeal would be inadequate.” State ex rel. Huffman v. Stephens, 206 W.Va. 501, 503, 526 S.E.2d 23, 25 (1999) ; see also State ex rel. Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W.Va. 121, 124, 464 S.E.2d 763, 766 (1995) (“In recent times in every case that has had a substantial legal issue regarding venue, we have recognized the importance of resolving the issue in an original action.”).

This Court typically reviews a circuit court's decision on venue, including forum non conveniens, under an abuse of discretion standard. See Syl. Pt. 3, Cannelton Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1 (1994) (“A circuit court's decision to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens will not be reversed unless it is found that the circuit court abused its discretion.”); Nezan v. Aries

...