Summary
In Alberta Orient Glycol Co., Ltd. v Factory Mutual Ins. Co. (49 AD3d 276 [1st Dept 2008]), the First Department affirmed the trial court's ruling which granted, among other things, motion of defendants to dismiss plaintiff's action due to forum non conveniens.
Summary of this case from FIN. GUAR. INS. v. IKB DEUTSCHE INDUSTRIEBANK AGOpinion
No. 2973.
March 4, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered May 1, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction as to defendants Great Lakes Reinsurance Company (UK) PLC, Commonwealth Insurance Company and ACE INA Insurance, and as against all defendants on forum non conveniens grounds, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Scott A. Chesin and Robert J. Ward of counsel), for appellant.
Clausen Miller P.C., New York (Barbara I. Michaelides of the Illinois Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
In this action for breach of contract based upon defendants' denial of coverage for plaintiff's losses under all-risk insurance policies covering plaintiff's chemical reactor facility in Alberta, Canada, the motion court properly determined that personal jurisdiction (CPLR 301) was lacking as to Great Lakes, Commonwealth and ACE INA, as they are not "engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of 'doing business' here that a finding of [their] 'presence' in this jurisdiction is warranted" ( Landoil Resources Corp. v Alexander Alexander Servs., 77 NY2d 28, 33). The record evidence also demonstrates that said companies' minimal contacts with New York are not sufficient to constitute the purposeful business activities required to subject them to this State's long-arm jurisdiction ( see CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Professional Personnel Mgt. Corp. v Southwest Med. Assoc., 216 AD2d 958).
Even if personal jurisdiction was not lacking, the court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the action as against all defendants on forum non conveniens grounds ( see CPLR 327 [a]). The court considered the relevant factors, including the domicile of plaintiff and many of the defendants, the site of the loss, the location of records and files, the number of witnesses in Canada and in locations other than New York, and the fact that a related action is currently pending in the Canadian courts, and appropriately determined that Canada is the more appropriate forum ( see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479, cert denied 469 US 1108; see also Hbouss v Bank of Montreal, 23 AD3d 152).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.