By Greg Anding
For years, plaintiffs in asbestos litigation have been filing suit in the plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions of St. Louis, Missouri and Madison County, Illinois. Some estimate that more than half of all mesothelioma claims filed in the United States are filed in Illinois and Missouri. Many of those claims arise out of alleged exposures completely outside of those two states: some sources cite as many as 72%. Under guidance from the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), Missouri appears to be bringing that trend to an end, which will likely mean an increase in filings in states such as Louisiana where the alleged exposures actually occurred. A similar issue is currently pending in Illinois, and a similar ruling would likely mean more filings in Louisiana as well.
On February 28, 2017, the Missouri Supreme Court, in State ex rel. Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Hon. Colleen Dolan, No. SC95514 (2/28/2017), applying the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Daimler, dismissed plaintiff’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Russel Parker, plaintiff, was an Indiana resident who was allegedly injured in Indiana while employed by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”), a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia. The court found that although Norfolk owned and operated railroad tracks in Missouri, Mr. Parker’s suit did not arise out of or relate to Norfolk’s activities in Missouri, and therefore, Missouri had no specific jurisdiction. More significant was the court’s finding of no general jurisdiction despite Norfolk’s “substantial and continuous business in Missouri” as demonstrated by its ownership of 400 miles of railroad tracks in Missouri, 590 employees in the state and generation of approximately $232 million in annual revenue from its Missouri operations. Finding that Norfolk also conducted “substantial and continuous business in at least 21 other states,” and its Missouri business amounted to only 2 percent of its total business, the court held this was insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over Norfolk. The court also noted that Norfolk did not consent to suit over activities unrelated to Missouri simply by complying with Missouri’s foreign corporation registration statute.
For more information, please contact any member of our Louisiana Asbestos Defense and Occupational Exposure team.