Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – Forum Non Conveniens – Insurance – Canadian Policy

Listen to this article

Sonoco Products Co. v. ACE INA Insurance (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-127-12, 21 pp.) (R. Bryan Harwell, J.) 4:11-cv-02366; D.S.C.

Holding: Plaintiff, a multinational company with headquarters in South Carolina, required an S.C. insurance company to find local property insurers for plaintiff’s foreign subsidiaries. Where this litigation arises out of the collapse of a roof at plaintiff’s Canadian subsidiary’s Ontario facility, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the local Canadian insurer.

The Canadian insurer’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. The remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is denied.

The Canadian insurer maintains no presence in South Carolina, owns no property in South Carolina, and has never “made in-person visits to South Carolina.” The Canadian policy – the only policy to which the Canadian insurer is a signatory – covers only property located in Canada, is between two Canadian companies, and was neither applied for nor issued in South Carolina. The Canadian policy directs that Ontario law will control.

Although the Canadian insurer used an S.C.-based claims adjuster to handle its claims, plaintiff selected the adjuster.

Allowing the Canadian policy and Canadian parties to proceed before a Canadian court, while keeping the S.C. policy and U.S. parties before an S.C. court, is efficient and in keeping with the policy that courts of a particular country are often best able to interpret and apply the laws of that country.

Given that the remaining defendants submitted to a forum selection clause which requires disputes under the master insurance policy to be brought in South Carolina, defendants’ request to dismiss the remaining claims on the basis of forum non conveniens must be denied.