Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp.
This text of Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp. (Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-A18015-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
PHYLLIS DICKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE : PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON, : ROBERT DICKERSON : : : v. : : : No. 3131 EDA 2024 UNITED STATES STEEL : CORPORATION, SUNOCO, INC. : (R&M) F/K/A SUN COMPANY, INC. : AND F/K/A SUN OIL COMPANY, INC., : RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, : CRC INDUSTRIES, INC., HENKEL : CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : LOCTITE CORPORATION AND : HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION, BP : PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SINCLAIR OIL : CORPORATION, ATLANTIC : RICHFIELD COMPANY, EXXON MOBIL : CORPORATION, UNIVAR USA, INC. : F/K/A AND SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO UNIVAR : CORPORATION, VWR UNITED AND : VAN WATERS & ROGERS, INC., AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : CHEMCENTRAL CORP., SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SOUTHWEST : SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, AND AS : SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : UNITED PACIFIC CORPORATION, : ASHLAND, LLC, SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO AND F/K/A ASHLAND, : INC., SAVOGRAN COMPANY, : HOUGHTON CHEMICAL : CORPORATION, UNION OIL : COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, HOP : ENERGY, LLC, METRO OIL AND : J-A18015-25
CHEMICAL CORPORATION, : SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT : INTERNATIONAL, INC. : : : APPEAL OF: PHYLLIS DICKERSON, : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON
Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 190703709
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
Appellant, Phyllis Dickerson, individually and as administratrix of the
estate of Robert Dickerson, appeals from the order entered on September 13,
2024, which granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non
conveniens, filed on behalf of, inter alia, Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”), Henkel US Operations Corporation
(“Henkel”), CRC Industries, Inc. (“CRC”), and BP Products, North America,
Inc. (“BP”) (hereinafter, collectively, “the Defendants”). We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this appeal:
Plaintiffs Robert Dickerson and Phyllis Dickerson [were married and, at all times, were] residents of North Carolina[. They] brought this action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 29, 2019, alleging that Mr. Dickerson developed Myelodysplastic Syndrome ("MSD") as the result of occupational exposure to benzene containing products during the course of his employment in North Carolina in the
-2- J-A18015-25
years from 1955 to 2006.[1] Plaintiffs, at all times, were residents of North Carolina and Mr. Dickerson never lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Defendants are companies that manufactured, sold, marketed, and/or distributed products containing benzene that [Mr. Dickerson] allegedly worked with and was exposed to in the workplace. Such workplace exposure occurred in North Carolina.
Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, filed on July 29, 2019, set forth claims of negligence and gross negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, battery, fraud, and loss of consortium against [17] defendants, many of which contested [the trial court’s] jurisdiction. Because of these jurisdictional objections, this matter was delayed during the pendency of the litigation in [Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), vacated and remanded, 600 U.S. 122 (2023).] Of the original [17] defendants, only three were Pennsylvania corporations — CRC, Sunoco, and United States Steel Corporation. As of [September 13, 2024,] CRC [was] the only remaining Pennsylvania corporate [d]efendant.
[In 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, contending that the trial court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and grant Plaintiffs leave to refile their case in North Carolina. On August 8, 2024, the trial court held oral argument on the Defendants’ motions. 2] At [argument], the [trial court] was informed that there are now [four] remaining Defendants: Exxon Mobil, Henkel, ARCO, and CRC. Plaintiffs allege[d] occupational exposure to benzene contained in Defendant CRC's Clean-R-Carb carburetor cleaner and Henkle's Permatex Gasket Adhesive. Defendants Exxon Mobil and ARCO are alleged to have supplied petroleum components containing benzene that were used in the manufacture of CRC's carburetor cleaner and Henkle's adhesive. ____________________________________________
1 Mr. Dickerson sadly passed away on June 10, 2023, from MSD.
2 The trial court initially denied the Defendants’ motions. However, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and then reexamined the issue.
-3- J-A18015-25
Defendants contest that Mr. Dickerson was [n]ever exposed to their products during the course of his employment and Defendant CRC denies that its carburetor cleaner contains benzene and/or that it caused [Mr. Dickerson’s] illness. Plaintiff, Mr. Dickerson, passed away on June 10, 2023 of MSD. He is survived by his wife Phyllis Dickerson, who is Plaintiff individually and as Administratrix of her late husband's estate.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at 2-4.
During the August 8, 2024 argument on the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the trial court concluded:
it doesn’t appear that trial is going to be scheduled any time soon. So . . . we’re back where we started. . . . [T]here are still preliminary objections outstanding . . . about personal jurisdiction. . . . So the plaintiff is going to wait another five years on this. Because it’s going to go back. [Defendants are] not giving up the fact that they believe that Justice Alito agreed with them that the plaintiff has no business filing lawsuits in – or Pennsylvania has no business asserting jurisdiction over companies that aren’t [their] province to have jurisdiction over.
N.T. Hearing, 8/8/24, at 20 and 43-45. Further, during argument, the
Defendants asserted: “in 2021[,] when this was first filed, all [Defendants]
agreed not to contest specific jurisdiction in North Carolina. There’s no
jurisdictional problems in North Carolina.” Id. at 47-48.
On September 13, 2024, the trial court entered its order, which granted
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Within the trial court’s accompanying opinion, the trial court concluded: 1)
trial in North Carolina would provide easier access to the sources of proof than
trial in Pennsylvania; 2) compelling process for unwilling witnesses would be
-4- J-A18015-25
easier in North Carolina than in Pennsylvania; 3) “[Mr. Dickerson’s] general
working conditions are relevant and that a jury view of the workspace, the
ventilation, and whatever safety measures are in place, or not, would be a
reasonable defense of this case and that would be only possible in North
Carolina;” 4) “a trial in North Carolina would not only provide access to
relevant and material witnesses, it could be far more expeditious and
conceivably less costly;” 5) “there has been no evidence that a trial in
Pennsylvania could occur any earlier than in North Carolina;” 6) “North
Carolina courts and juries would have more of an interest in this case than
Pennsylvania [since] . . . Plaintiffs were residents of North Carolina, all of Mr.
Dickerson’s alleged exposure was in North Carolina, and [] all of the witnesses
with personal knowledge of his duties, work environment, and alleged
exposure as well as all of his treating physicians, are in North Carolina;” and,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A18015-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
PHYLLIS DICKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE : PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON, : ROBERT DICKERSON : : : v. : : : No. 3131 EDA 2024 UNITED STATES STEEL : CORPORATION, SUNOCO, INC. : (R&M) F/K/A SUN COMPANY, INC. : AND F/K/A SUN OIL COMPANY, INC., : RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, : CRC INDUSTRIES, INC., HENKEL : CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : LOCTITE CORPORATION AND : HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION, BP : PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SINCLAIR OIL : CORPORATION, ATLANTIC : RICHFIELD COMPANY, EXXON MOBIL : CORPORATION, UNIVAR USA, INC. : F/K/A AND SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO UNIVAR : CORPORATION, VWR UNITED AND : VAN WATERS & ROGERS, INC., AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : CHEMCENTRAL CORP., SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SOUTHWEST : SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, AND AS : SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : UNITED PACIFIC CORPORATION, : ASHLAND, LLC, SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO AND F/K/A ASHLAND, : INC., SAVOGRAN COMPANY, : HOUGHTON CHEMICAL : CORPORATION, UNION OIL : COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, HOP : ENERGY, LLC, METRO OIL AND : J-A18015-25
CHEMICAL CORPORATION, : SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT : INTERNATIONAL, INC. : : : APPEAL OF: PHYLLIS DICKERSON, : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON
Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 190703709
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
Appellant, Phyllis Dickerson, individually and as administratrix of the
estate of Robert Dickerson, appeals from the order entered on September 13,
2024, which granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non
conveniens, filed on behalf of, inter alia, Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”), Henkel US Operations Corporation
(“Henkel”), CRC Industries, Inc. (“CRC”), and BP Products, North America,
Inc. (“BP”) (hereinafter, collectively, “the Defendants”). We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this appeal:
Plaintiffs Robert Dickerson and Phyllis Dickerson [were married and, at all times, were] residents of North Carolina[. They] brought this action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 29, 2019, alleging that Mr. Dickerson developed Myelodysplastic Syndrome ("MSD") as the result of occupational exposure to benzene containing products during the course of his employment in North Carolina in the
-2- J-A18015-25
years from 1955 to 2006.[1] Plaintiffs, at all times, were residents of North Carolina and Mr. Dickerson never lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Defendants are companies that manufactured, sold, marketed, and/or distributed products containing benzene that [Mr. Dickerson] allegedly worked with and was exposed to in the workplace. Such workplace exposure occurred in North Carolina.
Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, filed on July 29, 2019, set forth claims of negligence and gross negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, battery, fraud, and loss of consortium against [17] defendants, many of which contested [the trial court’s] jurisdiction. Because of these jurisdictional objections, this matter was delayed during the pendency of the litigation in [Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), vacated and remanded, 600 U.S. 122 (2023).] Of the original [17] defendants, only three were Pennsylvania corporations — CRC, Sunoco, and United States Steel Corporation. As of [September 13, 2024,] CRC [was] the only remaining Pennsylvania corporate [d]efendant.
[In 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, contending that the trial court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and grant Plaintiffs leave to refile their case in North Carolina. On August 8, 2024, the trial court held oral argument on the Defendants’ motions. 2] At [argument], the [trial court] was informed that there are now [four] remaining Defendants: Exxon Mobil, Henkel, ARCO, and CRC. Plaintiffs allege[d] occupational exposure to benzene contained in Defendant CRC's Clean-R-Carb carburetor cleaner and Henkle's Permatex Gasket Adhesive. Defendants Exxon Mobil and ARCO are alleged to have supplied petroleum components containing benzene that were used in the manufacture of CRC's carburetor cleaner and Henkle's adhesive. ____________________________________________
1 Mr. Dickerson sadly passed away on June 10, 2023, from MSD.
2 The trial court initially denied the Defendants’ motions. However, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and then reexamined the issue.
-3- J-A18015-25
Defendants contest that Mr. Dickerson was [n]ever exposed to their products during the course of his employment and Defendant CRC denies that its carburetor cleaner contains benzene and/or that it caused [Mr. Dickerson’s] illness. Plaintiff, Mr. Dickerson, passed away on June 10, 2023 of MSD. He is survived by his wife Phyllis Dickerson, who is Plaintiff individually and as Administratrix of her late husband's estate.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at 2-4.
During the August 8, 2024 argument on the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the trial court concluded:
it doesn’t appear that trial is going to be scheduled any time soon. So . . . we’re back where we started. . . . [T]here are still preliminary objections outstanding . . . about personal jurisdiction. . . . So the plaintiff is going to wait another five years on this. Because it’s going to go back. [Defendants are] not giving up the fact that they believe that Justice Alito agreed with them that the plaintiff has no business filing lawsuits in – or Pennsylvania has no business asserting jurisdiction over companies that aren’t [their] province to have jurisdiction over.
N.T. Hearing, 8/8/24, at 20 and 43-45. Further, during argument, the
Defendants asserted: “in 2021[,] when this was first filed, all [Defendants]
agreed not to contest specific jurisdiction in North Carolina. There’s no
jurisdictional problems in North Carolina.” Id. at 47-48.
On September 13, 2024, the trial court entered its order, which granted
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Within the trial court’s accompanying opinion, the trial court concluded: 1)
trial in North Carolina would provide easier access to the sources of proof than
trial in Pennsylvania; 2) compelling process for unwilling witnesses would be
-4- J-A18015-25
easier in North Carolina than in Pennsylvania; 3) “[Mr. Dickerson’s] general
working conditions are relevant and that a jury view of the workspace, the
ventilation, and whatever safety measures are in place, or not, would be a
reasonable defense of this case and that would be only possible in North
Carolina;” 4) “a trial in North Carolina would not only provide access to
relevant and material witnesses, it could be far more expeditious and
conceivably less costly;” 5) “there has been no evidence that a trial in
Pennsylvania could occur any earlier than in North Carolina;” 6) “North
Carolina courts and juries would have more of an interest in this case than
Pennsylvania [since] . . . Plaintiffs were residents of North Carolina, all of Mr.
Dickerson’s alleged exposure was in North Carolina, and [] all of the witnesses
with personal knowledge of his duties, work environment, and alleged
exposure as well as all of his treating physicians, are in North Carolina;” and,
7) “the vast majority of [Mr. Dickerson’s] workplace exposure to benzene was
alleged to have occurred from products and chemicals with no shown
manufacturing connection to Pennsylvania.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at
1-17.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s final order
and now raises two claims to this Court:
1. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by dismissing this case on the basis of forum non conveniens when the case had been pending for [five] years, discovery was complete, a trial date was imminent, and the [trial] court expended a great deal of resources on the matter?
-5- J-A18015-25
2. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by granting a motion to dismiss to North Carolina under forum non conveniens where two cases in this Court, [Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. 2006) and Hunter v. Shire US, Inc., 992 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 2010)], govern this appeal, where the public factors weigh strongly in favor of retaining this case in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County because, inter alia, the crux of the litigation pertains to decisions by Pennsylvania manufacturers to use benzene in their products, more Defendants/Appellees are located here than in any other State, all Defendants/Appellees are alleged to conduct business here, more essential witnesses are located in or near Philadelphia, and where the private factors do not strongly weigh in favor of dismissal?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified
record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Linda
Carpenter. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for
the reasons expressed in Judge Carpenter’s well-reasoned September 13,
2024 opinion.3 Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Carpenter’s able ____________________________________________
3 We note:
Orders on motions to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. This standard applies even where jurisdictional requirements are met. Moreover, if there is any basis for the trial court's decision, the decision must stand.
An abuse of discretion occurs if, inter alia, there was an error of law or the judgment was manifestly unreasonable. When reviewing for errors of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.
Hovatter v. CSX Transp., Inc., 193 A.3d 420, 424 (Pa. Super. 2018) (emphasis added).
-6- J-A18015-25
opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other
court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge
Carpenter’s September 13, 2024 opinion.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 9/8/2025
-7- Circulated 08/1502025 Circulated 08/15/2025 02 02:48 PM 48 PM
IN IN THE COURT OF THE COURT OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENSYLVANIA OF PENSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION
DICKERSON, et DICKERSON, al. et al. CASE NO. 190703709 CASE NO, 190703709 ; v. CONTROL NO. CONTROL NO. 24064169 24064169
UNITED UNITED STATES STEEL, et STATES STEEL, et al. al.
ORDER ORDER
AND AND NOW, NOW, this 13 th day this 13" day of of September, September, 2024, upon consideration 2024, upon consideration of of Defendant CRC Defendant CRC
Industries, Industries, Inc.’s Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration Motion for of the Reconsideration of the Court's Court’s April April 24, 2024 Order 24, 2024 Order denying denying
Defendants Ashland LLC, Defendants Ashland CRC Industries, LLC, CRC Industries, Inc., Inc., Union Oil Company Union Oil Company of of California, California, and and Univar Univar
Solutions Solutions USA USA Inc.’s Motion to Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss based on Dismiss based onforum forum non conveniens, and non conveniens, and the the response response
thereto, it thereto, it is is hereby ORDERED that hereby ORDERED that the the Motion for Reconsideration Motion for Reconsideration is is GRANTED, GRANTED, and and
provided provided that the remaining that the remaining Defendants Defendants honor honor their agreement not their agreement not to contest specific to contest specific jurisdiction jurisdiction
in in North Carolina, the North Carolina, the Motion Motion to to Dismiss based on Dismiss based on forum forum non non conveniens conveniens is GRANTED and is GRANTED and
Plaintiffs’ action is Plaintiffs' action is DISMISSED DISMISSED without without prejudice to Plaintiffs prejudice to Plaintiffs to to refile refile in in North Carolina within North Carolina within
one hundred one and twenty hundred and twenty (120) (120) days. days.
II IIIIII II II 11111111111111111 19070370900610 19070370900610
COPIES SENT COPIES SENT PURSUANT PURSUANT TOP.RC.P TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) 2364b) £E. HAURIN 09/13/2024 09/13/2024 IN THE COURT IN THE COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OF PENSYLVANIA PENSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION
DICKERSON, et al. DICKERSON, et al. : CASE NO. CASE 190703709 NO. 190703709
v. : CONTROL NO. CONTROL NO. 24064169 24064169
UNITED STATES STEEL, UNITED STATES STEEL, et et al. al. :
OPINION OPINION
CARPENTER, J. CARPENTER, J. SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 13,2024 13, 2024
Before Before the Court is the Court Defendants’ Motion is Defendants' Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration of of the Court’s April the Court's April 24, 2024 24, 2024
Order denying Order denying Defendants’ Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss based on forum non conveniens, pursuant based on pursuant to 42 to 42
Pa. C.S.A. 8§ 5322(e)' Pa.CS.A. 5322(e). 1Upon careful consideration Upon careful consideration of of the the arguments arguments presented by the presented by the parties, parties, this this
Court finds Court finds that that Defendants Defendants have have presented presented sufficient sufficient evidence evidence that that North Carolina is North Carolina is aa more more
appropriate forum appropriate in this forum in case and this case and thus, thus, has GRANTED the has GRANTED the Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss for for refiling refiling
within one hundred within one and twenty hundred and twenty (120) (120) days days in in North Carolina. 2 North Carolina
Defendants’ Motion '1Defendants' Motion toto Dismiss for forum Dismiss for forum nonnon conveniens conveniens was was originally originally filed filed March March 8,8, 2021 2021 and Rule and Rule to Show Cause to Show Cause waswas held held April 19, 2021 . Because April 19,2021. Because of of the the uncertainty uncertainty of of which which Defendants would Defendants would actually be part actually be part of any Pennsylvania of any trial, this Pennsylvania trial, Court determined this Court determined that the that the Motion was not ripe Motion was not ripe for review until after for review until after the jurisdictional the challenges were resolved. Following jurisdictional challenges were resolved. Following the Supreme Court the Supreme Court of of the the United States’ decision United States' decision in Mallory v. in Mallory Norfolk S. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 266 Ry. Co,, 266 A.3d 542, A.3d 542, 546 546 (Pa. (Pa. 2021), 2021), vacated vacated and and remanded, remanded, 600 U.S. U.S. 122 122 (2023), (2023), this this Court Court issued issued an an Order Order on on April April 24, 2024, 24, 2024, denying denying Defendants Defendants Asland Asland LLC, CRC Industries, LLC, CRC Industries, Inc., Inc., Union Oil Company Union Oil Company of of California, and California, and Univar Solutions USA Univar Solutions USA Inc.’s Inc.'s Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss based on forum based on forum nonnon conveniens. conveniens. On June On June 20, 20, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant CRCCRC filed filed aa Motion Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration of of that Order. that Order
This motion ?2 This is joined motion is by Defendants joined by Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon (Exxon Mobil), Atlantic Mobil), Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Richfield Company (ARCO), Henkel Henkel US Operations Corporation US Operations Corporation (incorrectly (incorrectly sued as Henkel sued as Henkel Corporation, Corporation, Individually Individually and and as as Successor-in-interest Successor-in-Interest to to Loctite Loctite Corporation), Corporation), (Henkel), (Henkel), and and BP BP Products, Products, North America, Inc. North America, (BP). Atlantie Inc. (BP). Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO") Richfield Company (“ARCO”) andand BP Products BP Products North America, North America, Inc. Inc. were sued as were sued as Successors-in-Interest Successors-in-Interest to Sinclair Oil, to Sinclair Oil.
2 FACTS FACTS OFOF THE THE CASE CASE
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Robert Robert Dickerson Dickerson and and Phyllis Phyllis Dickerson (h/w), residents Dickerson (h/w), of North residents of Carolina, North Carolina,
brought this action brought this action in in the the Philadelphia Court of Philadelphia Court of Common Common Pleas on July Pleas on July 29,2019, 29, 2019, alleging alleging that that
Mr. Dickerson Mr. Dickerson developed developed Myelodysplastic Myelodysplastic Syndrome Syndrome (“MSD”) as the (MSD") as the result of occupational result of occupational
exposure to exposure to benzene containing products benzene containing products during the course during the course of of his employment in his employment North Carolina in North Carolina
in the years in the years from from 1955 1955 to to 2006. 2006. Plaintiffs, at all times, Plaintiffs, at times, were were residents of North residents of Carolina and North Carolina and Mr.
Dickerson never lived Dickerson never or worked lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Defendants in Pennsylvania. are companies Defendants are companies that that manufactured, manufactured,
sold, marketed, sold, marketed, and/or and/or distributed distributed products containing benzene products containing benzene that that Plaintiff Plaintiff allegedly allegedly worked worked
with and was with and exposed to was exposed to in the workplace. in the workplace. Such Such workplace exposure occurred workplace exposure occurred in in North North
Carolina. Carolina.
Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs' original Complaint, filed original Complaint, on July filed on 29, 2019, July 29, 2019, set set forth claims of forth claims negligence and of negligence and
gross negligence, gross breach of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, warranty, strict liability, battery, battery, fraud, fraud, and and loss of consortium loss of consortium
against seventeen against seventeen (17) (17) Defendants, Defendants, many of which many of contested this which contested this Court's Court’s jurisdiction. jurisdiction.'3 Because Because
of these of these jurisdictional objections, this jurisdictional objections, this matter matter was was delayed during the delayed during the pendency of the pendency of the litigation in litigation in
Mallory v. Norfolk Mallory • Norfolk S. S. Ry. Co., 266 Ry. Co., 266 A.3d A.3d 542, 542, 546 546 (Pa. (Pa. 202D), 2021), vacated vacated and and remanded, 600 U.S. remanded, 600 U.S.
122 (2023). Of 122 (2023), Of the the original seventeen Defendants, original seventeen only three Defendants, only three were were Pennsylvania corporations - Pennsylvania corporations - CRC, Sunoco, CRC, Sunoco, and and United States Steel United States Steel Corporation. Corporation. As As of of the date of the date of the instant Motion the instant Motion for for
Reconsideration, CRC is Reconsideration, CRC is the the only remaining Pennsylvania only remaining corporate Defendant. Pennsylvania corporate Defendant
After vacating After vacating the the April 24, 2024 April 24, Order, this 2024 Order, Court conducted this Court conducted aa Rule hearing on Rule hearing on August August
8, 2024 on 8,2024 on the the Motion for Reconsideration. Motion for Reconsideration, At the hearing, At the hearing, the Court was the Court was informed informed that that there are there are
The litigation 'Te 3 litigation has involved several has involved several Amended Amended Complaints. Complaints. At present, Plaintiffs' At present, Plaintiffs’ claims claims are are set set forth in forth in the the Fourth Amended Complaint, Fourth Amended Complaint, filed filed July 3, 2024, July 3, 2024, which alleges negligence which alleges and gross negligence and gross negligence, negligence, breach breach of of warranty, warranty, strict strict liability, liability, battery battery and and fraud, fraud, wrongful wrongful death, death, and and the the Survival Survival Act. Act.
33 now four now (4) remaining four (4) remaining Defendants: Defendants: Exxon Exxon Mobil, Mobil, Henkel, ARCO, and Henkel, ARCO, and CRC. CRC. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs allege allege
occupational exposure occupational exposure to to benzene benzene contained contained in in Defendant CRC’s Clean-R-Carb Defendant CRC's Clean-R-Carb carburetor carburetor
cleaner and cleaner and Henkle’s Henkle's Permatex Gasket Adhesive, Permatex Gasket Adhesive. Defendants Defendants Exxon Exxon Mobil and ARCO Mobil and ARCO are are
alleged to alleged to have have supplied petroleum components supplied petroleum components containing containing benzene benzene that were used that were in the used in the
manufacture manufacture of CRC’s carburetor of CRC'g carburetor cleaner cleaner and and Henkle’s adhesive. Henkle's adhesive.
Defendants contest that Defendants contest that Mr. Mr. Dickerson Dickerson was ever exposed was ever exposed to to their their products during the products during the
course of course of his his employment employment and and Defendant CRC denies Defendant CRC denies that that its carburetor cleaner its carburetor cleaner contains contains
benzene and/or that benzene and/or that it it caused Plaintiff’s illness, caused Plaintiff's illness. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Mr. Dickerson, passed Mr. Dickerson, away on passed away on June June
10, 2023 of 10, 2023 0f MSD. MSD. He He is survived by is survived by his his wife Phyllis Dickerson, wife Phyllis Dickerson, who is Plaintiff who is individually Plaintiff individually
and as and Administratrix of as Administratrix of her her late late husband’s estate. husband's estate
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
The doctrine The doctrine of offorum as codified forum non conveniens, as codified at at 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §5322(e), $5322(e), permits permits aa court court
to dismiss to dismiss aa case case when when the the court court finds that "in finds that “in the the interest of substantial interest of substantial justice justice the the matter matter should should
be heard in another heard in another forum." forum.” Plum Plum v.• Tampax, Tampax, 160 A.2d 549 160 A.24 (Pa. 1960). 549 (Pa. 1960). See See also 42 Pa.C.S. also 42 Pa.C.S.
5322(e); Wright 5322(e); Wright.v. Consol. Consol. Rail Corp., 215 Rail Corp., 215 A.3d 982, 990-91 A.34 982, 990-91 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2019). 2019). Two factors are Two factors are
considered when considered when determining determining the the request to dismiss: request to dismiss: 1) I) aa plaintiffs decision about plaintiff's decision about where where to to
institute the institute the action cannot be action cannot disturbed except be disturbed except for weighty reasons; for weighty and 2) reasons; and 2) an an alternate forum alternate forum
must exist. must exist. Plum, Plum, 160 160 A.2d A.2d at at 553. 553. In evaluating whether In evaluating whether “weighty” "weighty" reasons reasons exist, the exist, the
Pennsylvania appellate Pennsylvania appellate courts courts have used the have used the standard standard set set forth forth in Gulf Oil in Gulf Oil Corp. Corp. v. Gilbert, Gilbert, 330 330
U.S. 501 (1947) U.S. 501 (1947)(Gulf Gulf oil"), Oil”), which evaluated "private" which evaluated “private” and and "public" “public” factors. factors. Plum, Plum, 160 160 A.2d A.2d at at
561. 56I Because Because the the parties parties concede concede that that North Carolina is North Carolina is an an alternate forum, this alternate forum, Court focuses this Court focuses on on
the "weighty" the “weighty” reasons reasons that that North Carolina would North Carolina would be be aa more more appropriate appropriate forum forum for the trial for the trial than than
4 4 Pennsylvania. Gulf Oil's Pennsylvania. Gulf Oil's statement of private statement of private factors includes the factors includes the relative ease of relative ease of access access to to
sources of sources of proof, availability of proof, availability of compulsory compulsory process process for for attendance attendance for for unwilling unwilling witnesses, cost witnesses, cost
of obtaining of attendance of obtaining attendance of willing willing witnesses, witnesses, possibility of view possibility of of premises view of (if view premises (if view would would be be
appropriate to appropriate to the the action), action), and and all other practical all other practical problems problems that make trial of that make of aa case case easy, easy,
expeditions, and expeditions, and inexpensive. Id. (emphasis inexpensive. Id (emphasis added). Gulf Oil's added). Gulf statement of Oil's statement of public public factors factors
includes aa consideration includes consideration of of relative relative administrative administrative difficulties difficulties at at trial, trial, aa concem concern that that jurors jurors should should
evaluate matters evaluate of concern matters of concern to to their community, and their community, and the the appropriateness of the appropriateness of at-issue forum the at-issue forum
(Pennsylvania) for (Pennsylvania) for the the particular questions involved, particular questions involved, including conflict of including conflict of laws. Id. (citing laws. Id. (citing Gulf Gulf
Oil, 330 0ill, 330 U.S. U.S. at at 508-09). 508-09).
This Court This Court interprets interprets Gulf Gulf Oil's Oil's list of factors, list of factors, focused on sources focused on sources of of proof proof at at trial and trial and
other weighty other considerations for weighty considerations for the the trial of the trial of action, to the action, to be considered in be considered in totality, totality, with no one with no one
factor factor being being determinative. This Court's determinative. This Court’s analysis analysis follows. follows.
PRIVATE PRIVATE FACTORS FACTORS
1. f, Would Would trial trial in in North Carolina provide North Carolina easier access provide easier access to the sources to the sources of of proof than proof than Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania?
In order to In order answer the to answer the question question about about access access to to proof for trial, proof for trial, this this Court Court must must first first
evaluate what evaluate claims will what claims will be be likely and what likely and evidence will what evidence will reasonably be needed reasonably be needed to to prove, or prove, Or
disprove, the disprove, relevant claims the relevant claims or or defenses. defenses. In this case, In this case, the the parties parties have cited to have cited to aa litany litany of of
potential potential witnesses and documents witnesses and documents that that they assert are they assert are vital vital to to the the presentation of evidence presentation of evidence at at
trial. trial. The The parties disagree as parties disagree as to to whether access to whether access to the evidence is the evidence is more easily obtained more easily obtained in in North North
Carolina or Carolina or Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. After After aa review review of of the the purported evidence for purported evidence each party, for cach this Court party, this Court
determines that determines many of that many of the the cited cited sources sources of of evidence are not evidence are not material to prove material to any claim prove any claim or or
defense at defense at trial. trial. In In reaching reaching this conclusion, this this conclusion, Court begins this Court with the begins with the premise that, at premise that, at its its heart, heart,
55 this case this concerns the case concerns alleged occupational/industrial the alleged exposure to occupational/industrial exposure to benzene benzene which which Mr. Mr. Dickerson Dickerson
claims he claims he worked worked with on aa daily with on daily basis in North basis in Carolina from North Carolina from 1955 1955 through through 2006, 2006, aa period period of of
over 50 over 50 years. years. During that time, During that time, Mr. Dickerson worked Mr. Dickerson worked for for two employers - two employers - aa Sinclair Sinclair gas gas
station from station from 1955-1959 1955-1959 and and Weyerhaeuser Weyerhaeuser from July, 1965-2006. from July, Because Mr. 1965-2006. Because Mr. Dickerson’s Dickerson's
alleged alleged exposure exposure to the remaining to the remaining Defendants’ Defendants' products products was was through through his his work, work, warnings and warnings and
labeling of products labeling of products to to aa retail consumer are retail consumer are not as central not as central to to his case. his case.
Thus, evidence as Thus, evidence as to Plaintiff’s exposure to Plaintiff's exposure in in the the workplace is the workplace is the primary primary factual factual issue issue for for
trial and evidence trial and evidence thereof thereof will come from will come the testimony from the of Mr. testimony of Mr. Dickerson, deceased, via Dickerson, deceased, via video video
deposition and deposition and Mrs. Mrs. Dickerson. Additional trial Dickerson. Additional trial testimony would come testimony would come from from Plaintiff’s Plaintiffs
supervisor and supervisor and co-workers co-workers and and possibly his treating possibly his treating physicians physicians in addition to in addition experts. While to experts. While it it is is
unlikely that unlikely that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs or Defendants will or Defendants will bring all of bring all of the the witnesses (co-workers and witnesses (co-workers supervisors) and supervisors)
they have they have listed listed to testify, it to testify, is very it is very likely that Defendants likely that will seek Defendants will seek the the testimony of Plaintiff’s testimony of Plaintiff's
former former supervisor at Weyerhaeuser, supervisor at Weyerhaeuser, Mr. Stephen Lawson, Mr. Stephen Lawson, who can testify who can testify with specificity as with specificity as to to
which products which products Plaintiff was exposed Plaintiff was exposed to, and how to, and the products how the products were used, in were used, addition to in addition to
testifying about testifying about his general working his general conditions. Defendants working conditions. argue that Defendants argue that Mr. Mr. Lawson’s Lawson's testimony testimony
is critical to is critical CRC’s defense to CRC's defense and and CRC CRC would would be be severely severely prejudiced prejudiced if they were if they were not not able able to call to call
him at trial, him at trial, as as Mr. Mr. Lawson’s Lawson's testimony goes directly testimony goes directly to to the threshold issue the threshold issue of of whether whether Plaintiff Plaintiff
was was exposed exposed to CRC’s carburetor to CRC's carburetor cleaner cleaner during during his employment at his employment at Weyerhaeuser. Weyerhaeuser.4 Mr. Mr
Lawson has Lawson has testified testified that that he he would not voluntarily would not come to voluntarily come to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania for for trial. trial.
4Mr. Dickerson Mr. Dickerson testified testified that that he he used CRC carburetor used CRC carburetor cleaner cleaner forty-five forty-five minutes to an minutes to an hour each hour each day. day. The The testimony testimony of of Mr. Mr. Dickerson’s Dickerson's supervisor, supervisor, Mr. Mr. Lawson, Lawson, directly directly contradicts contradicts that that testimony, making him testimony, making him aa material material witness witness for for the defense. the defense ...Mr. Lawson ...Mr. Lawson testified testified that that he he never never observed any operators observed any operators using carburetor cleaners using carburetor and cleaners and that there that there was was nono reason reason for an operator for an operator to to use carburetor cleaners use carburetor cleaners at at Weyerhaeuser. Weyerhaeuser, Additionally, Mr. Additionally, Mr. Dickerson claimed that Dickerson claimed that he he used used CRC CRC carburetor carburetor cleaners cleaners forty-five forty-five minutes minutes toto an an hour each day. hour each day. Mr. Lawson confirmed Mr. Lawson confirmed that operators occasionally that operators occasionally used used
66 As to the As to the relative relative ease of access ease of access to to these sources of these sources of proof at trial, proof at trial, based on the based on the evidence evidence
before before it, it, this Court finds this Court that trial finds that in North trial in Carolina or North Carolina or Pennsylvania Pennsylvania would would have no impact have no on impact on
the testimony of the testimony of Plaintiff Plaintiff Mr. Mr. Dickerson because that Dickerson because that will will be be brought brought via via video tape. Evidence video tape. as Evidence as
to to products, products, their their formulations, formulations, and and how how they were marketed they were marketed and advertised, in and advertised, addition to in addition to
evidence as evidence to exposure as to and causation exposure and causation will likely be will likely be presented presented by expert testimony. by expert testimony. The The
testimony of testimony of Plaintiff's Plaintiff’s employers, employers, supervisor, supervisor, and and co-workers would be co-workers would easier in be easier in North North Carolina Carolina
and would and would be more difficult be more difficult in in Pennsylvania because they Pennsylvania because they cannot cannot be compelled to be compelled to testify if the testify if the
case remains case remains in in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
In addition addition to to the above testimony the above and evidence, testimony and evidence, the the parties will be parties will be presenting presenting their their
proofs proofs regarding regarding Plaintiffs Plaintiff's workplace conditions, including workplace conditions, dimensions of including dimensions of the space, industry the space, industry
standards as standards as to to ventilation and proximity, ventilation and and safety proximity, and safety measures, or lack measures, or thereof, of lack thereof, of the the premises premises
along with along with the evidence about the evidence about which which products products Plaintiff used or Plaintiff used or was exposed to was cxposed in the to in the workplace. workplace.
Much of this Much of this will will likely likely be be presented presented by experts, however, by experts, however, there could also there could also be be evidence evidence presented presented
by by Plaintiffs employer and Plaintiffs employer co-workers on and co-workers on these issues, which these issues, would be which would easier in be easier in North Carolina. North Carolina.
Plaintiffs argue Plaintiffs argue that that documentary documentary evidence evidence and and corporate corporate witnesses of Defendant witnesses of CRC Defendant CRC
are located are in Pennsylvania located in Pennsylvania and and these go directly these go directly to to pivotal pivotal issues issues regarding CRCs formulation, regarding CRCs formulation,
manufacture, and marketing manufacture, and of their marketing of their products as well products as well as as internal internal decisions decisions regarding regarding the safety the safety
and warmings. and warnings. This This Court Court has has taken taken these arguments into these arguments into consideration and concludes consideration and concludes that, that, while while
this evidence this evidence is is relevant, relevant, the the marketing marketing materials are not materials are not the central focus the central of this focus of case given this case given that that
the the relevant exposure to relevant exposure to benzene was in benzene was the industrial, in the industrial, not consumer, arena. not consumer, arena. Moreover, Moreover, most, most, if if
aerosol products, aerosol products, like like WD-40, on valves, WD-40, on but he valves, but described that he described as aa rare that as occurrence. He rare occurrence. He surprised further testified that he would be surprised to hear an operator operator claim to have used aerosol cleaners to cleaners to the the extent claimed by extent claimed by Mr. Mr. Dickerson. Dickerson. See Defendants Defendants Ashland Ashland LLC, CRC LLC, CRC Industries, Industries, Inc., Inc., Union Union Oil Company of Oil Company of California, California, and and Univar Univar Solutions Solutions USA USA Inc.’ Inc.'ss March 8, March 8, 2021 2021 Motion Motion to to Dismiss at Paragraph Dismiss at Paragraph 9.9.
77 not all, of not all, of the the CRC CRC testimony testimony regarding regarding these issues is these issues is likely to be likely to be submitted through expert submitted through expert
testimony and already testimony and already videotaped corporate depositions videotaped corporate of the depositions of designated CRC the designated CRC personnel. personnel.
Further, it is Further, it is unclear whether any unclear whether any of of the relevant CRC the relevant CRC designees designees are are still still located located in in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
and, at and, at the the hearing of this hearing of this matter matter in August 2024, in August 2024, Plaintiffs Plaintiffs pointed pointed to to no no particular particular CRC CRC witness witness
that that was was located located in in Pennsylvania and was Pennsylvania and was also material to also material the trial. to the trial. In any event, In any event, if if aa designec designee
were were required at trial, required at access to trial, access to that that testimony testimony would would be be no more difficult no more difficult whether trial is whether trial is in in
Pennsylvania or North Pennsylvania or Carolina. North Carolina.
Again, Again, the issue in the issue this case in this case is is whether whether Plaintiff Plaintiff was ever exposed was ever to Defendants exposed to Defendants’
products, the extent products, the extent of of that that exposure, exposure, and, and, if if proved, whether that proved, whether that exposure caused his exposure caused his injuries. injuries.
The bulk The bulk of of the the testimonial testimonial evidence evidence regarding Plaintiffs exposure regarding Plaintiff's exposure and daily activities and daily activities is likely is likely
to be to be presented presented though the testimony though the of Plaintiff testimony of as well Plaintiff as as Plaintiffs well as Plaintiff's employers, employers, supervisors, supervisors,
and coworkers. and coworkers. This This would would be much easier be much easier if the the trial trial were in North were in Carolina. North Carolina
A A final final probable probable source of proof source of proof relevant to this relevant to case is this case evidence regarding is evidence regarding damages and damages and
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs medical medical treatment. treatment. Defendants argue that Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs four (4) treating four (4) physicians are treating physicians are
important important to to their case and their case and they they may be called may be called to to testify testify if if the trial is the trial in North is in Carolina. While North Carolina. While
one or one or more of Plaintiff more of Plaintiffss treating treating physicians may be physicians may called at be called at trial, especially if trial, especially if the the case case is is tried tried
in in North North Carolina, this Court Carolina, this Court finds finds it it more more likely that most likely that most of of the the medical and causation medical and causation
testimony testimony will will be submitted and be submitted and refuted refuted through experts, who through experts, who will will rely on the rely on the various medical various medical
records records that that have already been have already produced in been produced in this this case. case. Thus, this Court Thus, this Court does does not not find that there find that is there is
any easier any easier access access to to the medical evidence the medical evidence whether trial is whether trial is in in North Carolina or North Carolina or in in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
and this and this factor factor is is not part of not part of the the totality for the totality for the Court. Court.
88 2. Is 2. there availability Is there of compulsory availability of compulsory process process for unwilling witnesses for unwilling and the witnesses and cost of the cost of attendance of attendance of the the willing willing witnesses witnesses to to aa Pennsylvania Pennsylvania trial? trial
Defendants argue that Defendants argue that witnesses critical to witnesses critical to the defense would the defense would be available to be available to testify testify in in
North Carolina, but North Carolina, but not be available not be available for for trial trial in in Pennsylvania, and have Pennsylvania, and have included included Plaintiffs’ list of Plaintiffs' list of
witnesses that witnesses have knowledge that have knowledge of of Mr. Mr. Dickerson’s alleged work Dickerson's alleged exposure. Of work exposure, Of these these witnesses, witnesses,
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s Defendants argue Plaintiff's supervisor, Mr. Lawson, supervisor, Mr. and co-worker, Lawson, and co-worker, Jerry Jerry Stines Stines - - both both with with
actual knowledge actual of Plaintiff’s knowledge of exposure -- Plaintiff's exposure - will will likely likely be be called at trial called at trial and and their their testimony is testimony is
critical to critical to their their defense. defense. Mr. Mr. Lawson’s testimony goes Lawson's testimony goes directly directly to to the issue of the issue of Plaintiff’s exposure Plaintiffs exposure
and directly and directly contradicts Plaintiff’s testimony. contradicts Plaintiffs testimony. Mr. Mr. Lawson Lawson has has testified testified that that he is not he is not willing willing to to
appear appear in in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Plaintiff’s co-workers have Plaintiff's co-workers have not not indicated indicated that that they they would would voluntarily voluntarily
appear at appear at trial trial in in Pennsylvania. This Court Pennsylvania. This Court concludes concludes that that the the defense defense has has aa right right to call material to call material
live witness live witness at at trial and that trial and compelling this that compelling material testimony this material testimony is easier in is easier in North Carolina than North Carolina than in in
Pennsylvania. Standing alone, Pennsylvania. Standing alone, this factor is this factor is not enough to not enough to transfer, transfer, but but it it is is included included in in the the
Court’s totality Court's totality analysis. analysis.
3. 3. Is Is there there aa possibility of view possibility of of the view of the premises, premises, if if view view would be appropriate would be appropriate to this to this action? action?
Defendants maintain Defendants that aa jury's maintain that jury’s ability ability to to view the facilities view the facilities would significantly enhance would significantly enhance
the the jury’s understanding of jury's understanding of Plaintiff’s working conditions, Plaintiffs working conditions, through through first-hand observation of first-hand observation the of the
dimensions of dimensions of the the workspaces, workspaces, the the ventilation, and the ventilation, and safety measures the safety measures in in place. place. A jury view A jury view
would would not be possible not be in Pennsylvnia. possible in Pennsylvnia.
Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiffs assert that aa jury's jury’s view is an view is an unnecessary unnecessary and and irrelevant consideration because irrelevant consideration because
Defendants Defendants have been involved have been involved in in numerous benzene exposure numerous benzene exposure cases cases and and have have never never had had aa judge judge
or jury or jury view view the the worksite. worksite, In weighing this In weighing this factor, factor, this Court determines this Court determines whether whether the the possibility possibility
99 of aa jury of jury view view of of the the premises premises would would be easier if be easier if the the trial were in trial were in North Carolina rather North Carolina rather than than
Pennsylvania and whether Pennsylvania and whether that carries significant that carries significant weight. weight. This Court finds This Court finds that that Plaintiff’s Plaintiffs
general general working conditions are working conditions are relevant and that relevant and that aa jury jury view of the view of the workspace, the ventilation, workspace, the ventilation,
and whatever and safety measures whatever safety measures are are in in place, place, or or not, not, would would be be aa reasonable defense of reasonable defense of this case and this case and
that would be that would only possible be only in North possible in Carolina. While North Carolina. While aa jury jury view view is is unlikely, and, standing unlikely, and, standing
alone, alone, would not support would not dismissal, it support dismissal, is aa factor it is that must factor that must be be included in aa totality included in totality of of
circumstances analysis circumstances analysis.
4. What 4. other practical What other problems make practical problems make trial easy, expeditious, trial easy, expeditious, and and inexpensive inexpensive such that such that North Carolina or North Carolina or Pennsylvania Pennsylvania is is a a more more appropriate appropriate forum? forum?
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs argue argue that that to to dismiss dismiss this case and this case and "start “start over” over" in in North North Carolina Carolina would would
not eliminate not eliminate the the need need for Philadelphia and for Philadelphia and the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania courts to be courts to be actively actively involved in the involved in the
litigation. A North litigation. A Carolina court North Carolina court would would require require the the assistance of Pennsylvania assistance of and other Pennsylvania and other courts courts
to to secure documents and secure documents and testimony testimony and, and, if if Plaintiffs are required Plaintiffs are required to execute aa judgment to execute judgment against against
Defendant CRC, Defendant CRC, the the participation of the participation of the Pennsylvania court would Pennsylvania court would be be necessary necessary to to enforce enforce the the
judgment; thus, judgment; thus, moving moving this case to this case to North North Carolina Carolina would would result result in in an even trade an even of judicial trade of judicial
burdens. This Count burdens. This Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument rejects Plaintiffs' argument that any material that any material evidence evidence has has been shown to been shown to
exist in exist in Pennsylvania. All documents, Pennsylvania. All documents, manufacturing information, and manufacturing information, and testimony have been testimony have been
produced and Plaintiffs produced and Plaintiffs have have pointed pointed to to no no specific evidence that specific evidence that is is located located in in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania that that
would need subpoena would need subpoena to to North Carolina. As North Carolina. to execution As to of judgment execution of judgment concerns, all seventeen concerns, all seventeen
original original Defendants consented to Defendants consented to jurisdiction jurisdiction in North Carolina, in North Carolina, including including the the four four that remain. that remain.
Moreover, three Moreover, of the three of the four four remaining remaining Defendants are foreign Defendants are corporations. Simply foreign corporations. Simply put, there is put, there is
no concrete evidence no concrete evidence before before this Court that this Court the costs that the costs of of obtaining obtaining witnesses or executing witnesses or executing
judgment would judgment would be greater in be greater in North Carolina or North Carolina or Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Rather, Rather, aa trial in North trial in Carolina North Carolina
10 would not only would not only provide access to provide access to relevant and material relevant and material witnesses, witnesses, it could be it could be far far more more
expeditious and expeditious and conceivably conceivably less less costly. costly. As As far far as as the expeditiousness of the expeditiousness of trial, trial, there there has has been been no no
evidence that evidence that aa trial trial in in Pennsylvania could occur Pennsylvania could occur any any earlier earlier than than in in North Carolina given North Carolina given that that
trial in trial this case in this case is is most most likely likely to to be scheduled in be scheduled in late late 2025 or early 2025 or early 2026. 2026.
PUBLIC FACTORS PUBLIC FACTORS
1. I, What are the What are the relative administrative difficulties relative administrative difficulties of of trial trial in in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania versus versus North Carolina? North Carolina?
Defendants Defendants provide statistical evidence provide statistical evidence that that Philadelphia courts are Philadelphia courts are busy and that busy and that the the
Philadelphia court docket Philadelphia court docket is is significantly significantly busier busier than than that of Washington that of County, North Washington County, Carolina. North Carolina.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs argue argue that that there there is is no evidence of no evidence the Philadelphia of the court being Philadelphia court being unable to provide unable to provide aa more more
expedient trial expedient and further trial and further aver aver that the Superior that the Superior Court Court has greatly minimized has greatly minimized the the importance of importance of
this factor, this factor. This This Court Court rejects any consideration rejects any consideration that that there is any there is any particular particular administrative administrative
difficulty difficulty in in Philadelphia because of Philadelphia because of congestion congestion or or other other such such consideration. consideration. However, given the However, given the
jurisdictional challenges jurisdictional in this challenges in case and this case and its its current current case case management schedule, trial management schedule, trial in in
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania appears appears no more expeditious no more expeditious than than trial trial in North Carolina. in North Carolina.
2. 2. Are there trial Are there trial issues issues that are of that are of concern concern to to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania jurors and the jurors and the Pennsylvania community? Pennsylvania community?
Defendants argue that Defendants argue that aa jury jury of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania residents would have residents would no relationship have no relationship to the to the
key aspects key aspects of of this case. Plaintiffs this case. Plaintiffs were were residents of North residents of Carolina, all North Carolina, all of of Mr. Mr. Dickerson Dickerson'ss
alleged exposure alleged exposure was in North was in Carolina, and North Carolina, and that that all of the all of the witnesses witnesses with with personal personal knowledge of knowledge of
his duties, work his duties, environment, and work environment, and alleged alleged exposure exposure as as well as all well as all of of his his treating treating physicians, are physicians, are
in North Carolina. in North Carolina. A A North Carolina jury, North Carolina jury, however, however, would have aa significant would have significant interest interest in in the the
11 litigation; litigation; as such, it as such, it would be unfair would be unfair and and inconvenient inconvenient to ask the to ask the citizens citizens of of Philadelphia Philadelphia to to act act
as jurors as jurors when this case when this case has nothing to has nothing do with to do with their community. their community
Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiffs argue that Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County courts and County courts and jurors jurors have have the the
greater greater interest interest in in this case because this case because Defendant CRC is Defendant CRC is aa Pennsylvania Pennsylvania corporation corporation that that
manufactured manufactured its carburetor cleaner its carburetor cleaner in in Pennsylvania and placed Pennsylvania and that product placed that product into into the the stream of stream of
commerce. Pennsylvania commerce, jurors and Pennsylvania jurors and Pennsylvania courts have Pennsylvania courts an interest have an interest in the manner in the manner in which in which
Defendants conduct business. Defendants conduct Citing Wright business. Citing Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d Ince,, 905 544 (Pa. A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. Super.
2006). 2006)
This Court This Court acknowledges acknowledges that that Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, and its jurors, and its jurors, would would have have some interest in some interest in
this case because this case CRC is because CRC is aa Pennsylvania corporation. However, Pennsylvania corporation. However, three of the three of the four remaining four remaining
Defendants Defendants have no real have no real connection connection with with manufacturing any relevant manufacturing any relevant products in Pennsylvania products in Pennsylvania
and all and all three contest jurisdiction. three contest jurisdiction. Moreover, Moreover, the the evidence is equivocal evidence is as to equivocal as to whether whether Plaintiff was Plaintiff was
ever actually ever actually exposed to aa CRC exposed to CRC product product that that was was manufactured in Pennsylvania. manufactured in Pennsylvania
In In taking taking this this factor factor into consideration in into consideration in the the totality analysis of totality analysis of whether whether North Carolina is North Carolina is aa
more appropriate forum, more appropriate forum, this Court concludes this Court concludes that, that, because because it it is is the the alleged alleged prolonged prolonged
occupational exposure occupational exposure to to products products provided provided in the workplace in the workplace in in North Carolina that North Carolina is the that is the
linchpin linchpin issue issue for for trial, trial, North Carolina courts North Carolina courts and and juries juries would would have have more of an more of an interest interest in in this this
case than case than Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
3. Is 3. Pennsylvania an ls Pennsylvania appropriate forum an appropriate for the forum for the particular questions involved, particular questions involved, including conflict of laws? including conflictoflaws?
Defendants argue that Defendants argue that Pennsylvania has little Pennsylvania has relationship to little relationship to this case and this case and that all of that all of the the
relevant evidence is relevant evidence is in in North Carolina. Defendants North Carolina. also assert Defendants also assert that that there are conflict there are conflict of of
12 laws laws issues issues in this case. in this case.°5
Plaintiffs argue Plaintiffs that Defendant argue that CRC is Defendant CRC is aa Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered in in
Pennsylvania, and if Pennsylvania, and if there there is is aa conflict, conflict, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law should apply. law should apply. Citing Citing Wright Wright v. v. Aventis Aventis
Pasteur, Pasteur, Inc., Ince., 905 905 A.2d 544, 548 A.2d 544, 548 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2006). This Super. 2006). This Court Court acknowledges acknowledges that that there there is is no no
broad-brush answer to broad-brush answer to determine determine which which law would apply law would apply to any particular to any issue in particular issue in this case. this case.
While Pennsylvania While certainly has Pennsylvania certainly has an an interest in its interest in its products products liability liability laws applying to laws applying to
corporations corporations that are residents that are of the residents of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has no interest has no interest in in having having its its
products liability laws products liability apply to laws apply the other to the other non-resident non-resident foreign corporations that foreign corporations that allegedly exposed allegedly exposed
Plaintiff Plaintiff to benzene. Moreover, to benzene. Moreover, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has has no interest in no interest in legal issues related legal issues related to to injuries injuries to to
aa non-resident resulting from non-resident resulting from workplace exposures primarily workplace exposures primarily from from foreign foreign corporations corporations that that
occurred in occurred in North Carolina and North Carolina and not Pennsylvania. Jessop not Pennsylvania. Jessop v. • ACF ACF Indus., Indus., LLC, 859 A.2d LLC, 859 A.2d 801, 801,
804 (Pa. 804 (Pa. Super. 2004); Wright Super. 2004); v. Consol. Wright v. Consol. Rail Rail Corp,, Corp., 215 215 A.3d A.3d 982, 982, 996 996 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2019) 2019) (citing (citing
Engstrom Engstrom v. v. Bayer Corp., 855 Bayer Corp, 855 A.2d 52 (Pa. A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. Super. 2004) 2004) (imposing (imposing jury jury duty duty and and court court costs costs on on
communities communities with no relation with no relation to to the plaintiffs claim the plaintiff's claim weighs in favor weighs in of transferring favor of transferring aa case) case)
This Court recognizes This Court recognizes that that the instant matter the instant matter differs differs in some respect in some respect from from Wright Wright because because
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are alleging that are alleging that the the injuries are related injuries are to CRC's related to CRC’s conduct conduct in Pennsylvania, given in Pennsylvania, given that that
Defendant Defendant CRC CRC appears appears to have manufactured to have manufactured products in Pennsylvania. products in Pennsylvania. However, However, the the evidence evidence
'5Pennsylvania Pennsylvania recognizes recognizes aa tort claim for tort claim for breach breach ofof the the implied implied warranty warranty of of merchantability, merchantability, while in while in North Carolina such North Carolina such claim claim sounds sounds in in contract contract and and not not tort. tort. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania recognizes recognizes strict strict products products liability, liability, while while North North Carolina Carolina does does not. not. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania follows follows a a comparative comparative negligence approach, while negligence approach, while North North Carolina applies contributory Carolina applies contributory negligence. negligence. See See Sikkelee Sikkelee v. v Precision Airmotive, Corp., Precision Airmotive, Corp., No.No. 4:07-cv-886, 4:07-c-886, 2012 2012 WLWL 12862562, 12862562, atat *3 and *2 3 and (M.D. Pa. 2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. Mar. 13, 2012)(concluding 13, 2012(concluding that that “[u]ndeniably, "[undeniably, the the laws laws of of [North [North Carolina Carolina and and Pennsylvania] Pennsylvania] conflict conflict in aa material in and potentially material and dispositive way”). potentially dispositive way"). TheThe states' states’ respective respective approaches approaches to to damages damages also differ. also differ. Punitive damages are Punitive damages are limited limited inin North Carolina. N.C.G.S. North Carolina. N.C.6.S. §$ ID—25 caps punitive ID-25 caps punitive damages damages recoverable recoverable in in civil civil actions actions to to $250,000 $250,000 or or three-times three-times actual actual damages, damages, whichever whichever is is greater. greater. See See Rhyne Rhyne v. • K-Mart K-Mart Corp., Corp., 358 358 N.C. N.C. 160, 160, 163—64, 163-64, 594 594 S.E.2d S.E.24 1, 1, 5 5 (2004). (2004).
13 13 of this of alleged exposure this alleged exposure is equivocal, particularly is equivocal, particularly because because Mr. Mr. Dickerson’s employer, where Dickerson's employer, where the the
exposure would exposure would have have occurred, refutes that occurred, refutes that Mr. Mr. Dickerson Dickerson ever ever worked worked near near aa CRC CRC product. product.
Moreover, Moreover, the the vast vast majority of Plaintiff’s majority of Plaintiffs workplace exposure to workplace exposure to benzene benzene was alleged to was alleged to have have
occurred from occurred from products and chemicals products and chemicals with no shown with no shown manufacturing connection to manufacturing connection to
Pennsylvania. See Jessop Pennsylvania. Jessop v. • ACF ACF Indus., LLC, 859 A.2d LLC, 859 801 (Pa. A.24 801 (Pa. Super, Super. 2004). 2004)
Because Because this case is this case about Plaintiffs is about Plaintiff's alleged occupational exposure alleged occupational exposure to to benzene and the benzene and the
events giving events rise to giving rise to this action arose this action arose in in North Carolina, to North Carolina, to residents of North residents of Carolina, and North Carolina, and all all of of
the evidence as the evidence as to to that that exposure exposure is in North is in Carolina, this North Carolina, Court finds this Court that it finds that it would would be be more more
appropriate appropriate for for the the trial trial in in this case to this case to be in North be in Carolina. In North Carolina. In addition, addition, there are conflict there are conflict of of
laws considerations. laws considerations. A A trial court does trial court does not not need to decide need to decide which which law applies in law applies in deciding deciding aa
Motion Motion to Dismiss for to Dismiss forum non for forum non conveniens, only only that that there there is is aa conflict conflict of of laws laws issue issue and and that that
the conflict of the conflict of laws analysis is laws analysis is burdensome. burdensome. See See Bochetto v. Dimeling, Dime ling, Schreiber & Park, Park, 151 LSI
A.3d 1072, A.34 1072, 1086 (Pa. Super. 1086 (Pa. Super. 2016) 2016) (citing (citing Engstrom Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., • Bayer Corp., 855 855 A.2d A.24 52, 57 (Pa. 52, 57 (Pa. Super. Super.
2004) (affirming trial 2004) (affirming court's dismissal trial court's dismissal where dismissal was where dismissal was based based in in part on the part on the need need to engage to engage
in in aa conflict conflict of of laws laws analysis). analysis).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
After careful consideration After careful consideration of of the the private and public private and public factors in this factors in case, this this case, Court finds this Court finds that that
the private the and public private and factors weigh public factors weigh heavily heavily for for transfer transfer to to North Carolina. This North Carolina. This is is aa case case of of
alleged alleged workplace workplace exposure exposure to to benzene benzene that continued over that continued over aa fifty year time fifty year time period in North period in North
Carolina. Plaintiff Carolina. Plaintiff was was aa resident resident of of North North Carolina Carolina and and never never worked or lived worked or in Pennsylvnia. lived in Pennsylvnia.
It It is is not not disputed disputed that all of that all of the the sources sources of of proof, proof, including including Plaintiffs Plaintiffs treating treating physicians, co- physicians, co-
14 workers, and supervisors, workers, and supervisors, who can testify who can testify as to the as to the issue of exposure issue of exposure and and to to his injuries, are his injuries, are in in
North Carolina North Carolina.
Transfer of Transfer of this this case case would eliminate the would eliminate the jurisdictional jurisdictional objections of Defendants objections of Defendants ARCO, ARCO,
Exxon Mobil, and Exxon Mobil, and Henkle, Henkle, which which have have been ongoing since been ongoing since this case was this case was filed, filed, thus thus making making North North
Carolina aa more Carolina expeditious and more expeditious and less costly forum. less costly forum. While While aa Pennsylvania Pennsylvania jury jury may may have some have some
interest in interest this case, in this case, the connections to the connections to Pennsylvnia are tenuous Pennsylvnia are compared to tenuous compared those with to those with North North
Carolina. A Carolina. A North Carolina jury North Carolina jury would would have have aa much greater interest much greater in this interest in case, as this case, as it it involves involves
an injury an injury which occurred over which occurred over aa period of fifty period of fifty years years in North Carolina in North Carolina affecting affecting citizens citizens of of
North Carolina. North Carolina. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania is not an is not appropriate forum an appropriate to determine forum to determine the the issues issues concerning concerning
whether Mr. whether Mr. Dickerson Dickerson was was exposed exposed to to Defendants’ products in Defendants' products in North Carolina or North Carolina or to what to what
extent. Moreover, extent. Moreover, this case, with this case, with four four remaining remaining Defendants that all Defendants that all allegedly allegedly manufactured manufactured
products that contain products that contain benzene, raises multiple benzene, raises conflict of multiple conflict of laws laws issues. issues.
This Court acknowledges This Court acknowledges that that both both Plaintiffs and Defendants Plaintiffs and Defendants have have made made meritorious meritorious
arguments. arguments. The The gist of Plaintiffs’ gist of argument is Plaintiffs' argument is that that Defendants’ Defendants' Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss is an attempt is an attempt
to delay Plaintiffs’ to delay “day in Plaintiffs' "day court” by in court" by moving moving the case to the case to aa venue venue where they perceive where they the jury perceive the jury
pool pool to be more to be more strategically advantageous. They strategically advantageous. They aver aver that that transferring transferring this case would this case would result result in in
aa “manifest injustice” to "manifest injustice" to Plaintiffs, as this Plaintiffs, as this case case has been litigated has been litigated for for five years. Plaintiffs five years. Plaintiffs rely on rely on
Ficarra v. Ficarra Consol. Rail v. Consol. Corp., 242 Rail Corp., 242 A.3d A.3d 323, 338 (Pa. 323, 338 (Pa. Super. Super. 2020). The Ficarra 2020). The Court ruled Ficarra Court in ruled in
favor of the favor of the denial denial of of the the railroad railroad Defendants’/oram non conveniens Defendants'forum non conveniens motion motion because because the “bulk of the "bulk of
discovery” had discovery" had already been completed already been completed and and thus, thus, the case was the case was trial ready and trial ready and it it would would be be aa waste waste
of the of the Philadelphia Court’s resources, Philadelphia Court's as well resources, as as the well as the resources of the resources of the parties, parties, to dismiss the to dismiss case. the case.
The Court The Court reasoned reasoned that “it would that "it be inequitable would be inequitable to dismiss the to dismiss the matter matter when it is when it is ready ready for trial in for trial in
15 order for it order for to begin it to begin in another jurisdiction” in another and that jurisdiction" and “even if that "even if the case is the case is trial ready it trial ready will not it will not be be
tried as tried expeditiously when as expeditiously when it it begins anew in begins anew in another another jurisdiction." jurisdiction. Id. Id
While While this Court has this Court has taken taken into consideration the into consideration the delay delay occasioned occasioned in in this case, Ficarra this case, is Ficarra s
inapposite inapposite to the procedure to the in this procedure in this case case because because the case at the case at bar bar is is not not trial ready and trial ready and the the defense defense
made made its its request request to to transfer transfer well before the well before case would the case would be considered "trial be considered “trial ready.” ready." While While most most
of the of discovery with the discovery with regard to the regard to CRC product the CRC product has been completed, has been completed, under current case under current case
management deadlines, trial management deadlines, trial will will not not be scheduled until be scheduled until after after June 2025. Given June 2025. Given the current pre¬ the current pre-
trial notices trial notices in in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, aa trial could be trial could scheduled up be scheduled to aa year up to year after after the the pretrial conference, pretrial conference,
so so perhaps perhaps this case will this case will not not be scheduled for be scheduled for trial until the trial until the first first half of 2026. half of 2026. Further, because Further, because
three Defendants three Defendants continue continue to contest the to contest appropriateness of the appropriateness jurisdiction in of jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, this Pennsylvania, this
matter matter is is still at the still at the preliminary preliminary objection stage with objection stage with regard regard to to those Defendants. Consequently, those Defendants. Consequently,
it it does does not appear that not appear that these these Defendants Defendants have engaged in have cngaged in discovery discovery because because of of the the existing existing
jurisdictional challenges. jurisdictional challenges.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs further further argue argue that that Defendant CRC is Defendant CRC is aa Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered
in Pennsylvania, in and that Pennsylvania, and that the evidence and the evidence and witnesses witnesses as to the as to the formulation formulation and manufacture of and manufacture of
their carburetor cleaner their carburetor cleaner was was in in Pennsylvania. This Court Pennsylvania. This Court has included this has included this factor in its factor in analysis its analysis
of the of the totality of circumstances totality of circumstances and this factor, and this standing alone, factor, standing alone, would would lean lean in in favor favor of of trial trial m in
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. However, no factor However, no factor stands stands alone alone and and must must be be weighed weighed with all the with all other factors the other factors
set set forth forth in in Plum. Plum. Plaintiffs’ claims of Plaintiffs' claims of injury at trial injury at do not trial do not result result solely solely from from Defendant CRC’s Defendant CRC's
carburetor cleaner, carburetor cleaner, but but also also from the Henkel from the adhesive, which Henkel adhesive, which has has no connection to no connection to Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Further, Further, Defendant CRC has Defendant CRC has evidence evidence that that Plaintiff did not Plaintiff did not work in an work in an area area in in which which he he would would
have been have been exposed exposed to to the CRC product the CRC product that that was manufactured in was manufactured in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. To the extent To the extent
that that proof proof of of the the manufacture of the manufacture of the carburetor carburetor cleaner cleaner is is necessary necessary at at trial, trial, no no sources of proof sources of proof
16 have been have been shown shown to to be be obtained in Pennsylvania, obtained in Pennsylvania, given that most given that of this most of this testimony testimony will be will be
provided provided through through experts experts who who will will rely rely on on the documentary evidence the documentary evidence already already produced or other produced or other
evidence that evidence that is as easily is as easily obtained obtained in in North Carolina as North Carolina as in in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
This Court This Court has has evaluated evaluated both both parties’ submissions and parties' submissions and has has made made findings and findings and
conclusions that conclusions that weighty reasons exist weighty reasons exist such such that that North Carolina is North Carolina is aa more more appropriate appropriate forum forum than than
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
BYT
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickerson-p-v-united-states-steel-corp-pasuperct-2025.