WARE VS.

CIBA-GEIGY CORP
Residents of Alabama filed a class action complaint in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, alleging that they were
harmed when defendant companies negligently manufactured, transported
and disposed solid and liquid wastes near McIntosh, Alabama which has
placed Palintiffs in this case who are all Alabama residents in a position of
enhanced risk. Plaintiffs do not allege any physical injuries. They seek to
obtain funds to allow medical monitoring to assess the health effects of their
exposure to toxic materials allegedly disposed of improperly by defendants
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, CIBA-Geigy Corporation, Novartis,
Ltd., Freehold Cartage, Inc., Olin Corporation and Arch Chemicals, Inc. Such
relief is not an available remedy in Alabama.
Defendants sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum non
conveniens. Alternatively, they sought summary judgment on the ground that
Alabama law governed plaintiffs' claim and that Alabama does not recognize
such a claim. The judge denied the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum
non conveniens because plaintiffs did not have an alternate forum to
prosecute their medical-monitoring claim. The judge also determined that
Alabama law applied to plaintiffs' claim, that Alabama law did not recognize
the claim, and that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiffs
appeal from the May 20, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants. Defendants have filed a cross-appeal from the order denying the
motion to dismiss.

Issue:

Whether the plaintiff has the right to sue in New Jersey

Held:

The New Jersey Court found that Alabama was the state with the
“greatest interest;” it applied Alabama Law and dismissed the actions. The
court thought it was important that, “[a]side from the issue of waste
transportation, all of the dumping . . . occurred in Alabama.” The court
mentioned that, although New Jersey “does have an interest in ensuring that
companies that generate and transport hazardous [waste] within its borders
conduct their business in accordance with New Jersey law and policies,” the
plaintiffs’ exposure “came from the location and manner in which the waste
was disposed . . . [and this] location . . . is a significant, if not the dispositive,
factor.”

The court also thought that the plaintiffs had “no contacts with New Jersey
whatsoever” and had sued in New Jersey only because New Jersey law
favored them. “[I]t is not clear,” said the court with feigned understatement,
“that Alabama residents should receive the benefit of a favorable New Jersey
law when they have no connection with the latter state.” The court also stated
the practical difficulties of supervising a medical monitoring program in
Alabama, hypothesizing that Alabama “may not want a New Jersey court to
come into its territory and impose its law when its Supreme Court has
determined medical monitoring should not be available . . . and may not want
New Jersey law imposed onto resident businesses who may have located in
Alabama because Alabama law was more favorable to their business needs”.