Lexplug logoLexplug

Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
236 F.3d 1137, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 205, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 325 (2001)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A foreign forum is considered adequate for forum non conveniens dismissal if the defendant is amenable to service there and the forum provides some remedy, even if that remedy is an administrative no-fault compensation scheme rather than a judicial tort system.


Facts:

  • Ansett New Zealand Flight 703 crashed near Palmerston North, New Zealand, after the landing gear failed to lower hydraulically, distracting the flight crew who flew the aircraft into hilly terrain.
  • The crash resulted in the deaths of four people and injuries to all other passengers and crew; with the exception of one settled claim, all remaining plaintiffs are citizens of New Zealand.
  • The aircraft involved was manufactured in Canada by de Havilland, while the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) and radio altimeter were manufactured in the United States by Sundstrand and Honeywell.
  • New Zealand law operates under the Accident Compensation Act, a no-fault system that provides benefits for medical expenses and lost earnings but generally bars civil lawsuits for compensatory damages.
  • The plaintiffs filed claims with the New Zealand Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation (ACC) and received compensation for their injuries.
  • Seeking greater financial recovery than permitted under the New Zealand scheme, the plaintiffs initiated legal action in the United States against the component manufacturers.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs filed suit against the aircraft and component manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
  • The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the action.
  • Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does New Zealand's administrative no-fault accident compensation scheme constitute an 'adequate alternative forum' for forum non conveniens purposes, even though it bars civil negligence claims and precludes the recovery of substantial damages available in United States courts?


Opinions:

Majority - Paez

Yes, New Zealand's administrative compensation scheme is an adequate alternative forum. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, relying on the standard set in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno. First, the court held that a forum is 'adequate' if defendants are amenable to service of process and the plaintiff is not deprived of all remedy. Although New Zealand's Accident Compensation System (ACC) limits recovery and bars specific tort suits, it provides coverage for medical expenses and lost earnings. The court emphasized that a forum is not inadequate merely because the financial recovery is lower than in the U.S.; it is only inadequate if it offers 'no remedy at all.' Second, regarding the balance of private interest factors, the court found they favored New Zealand. While evidence regarding the component manufacturing is in the U.S., critical evidence regarding the crash site, wreckage, flight crew, and plaintiffs' medical status is in New Zealand. Crucially, U.S. courts cannot compel New Zealand witnesses to appear, whereas U.S. parties can voluntarily transport their documents to New Zealand. Finally, public interest factors weighed heavily for dismissal, as New Zealand has a strong local interest in an accident involving its own airline and citizens, while Arizona's interest is comparatively slight.



Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the barrier against 'forum shopping' by foreign plaintiffs seeking access to U.S. courts solely for higher damage awards. By validating an administrative, no-fault compensation scheme as an 'adequate alternative forum,' the Ninth Circuit clarified that a 'forum' need not be a traditional court with a jury trial. This ruling protects U.S. courts from being overburdened with foreign disputes where the only connection to the U.S. is the manufacture of a product component, particularly when the foreign country has made a sovereign policy choice to replace tort litigation with social insurance. It establishes that U.S. courts will respect foreign legal systems' choices on how to remedy injuries, even if those choices restrict the plaintiffs' ability to sue.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp. (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"