Heine v.

New York Life Insurance Company

Facts:
This case involved a claim for the insurance policies that the defendants issued. The defendant New
York Life Insurance Company was incorporated in New York with statutory agents in Oregon, upon
whom the service of summon may be served
The defendants acquired the right to do business in Germany subject to the condition that they were
to submit to the supervision and control of German Insurance officials, to invest proceeds arising from
German policies in German securities and to establish an office in Germany.
The defendants made and issued in Germany several insurance policies in favour of German
citizens. Thereafter, the plaintiffs brought in the Oregon District Court, in the name of insured parties
in Germany and in the US, an action against the defendants to recover some life insurance policies
made and issued by the defendants in Germany.
The plaintiffs argued that, because the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, it
has no discretion, but should proceed with the case, regardless of where the cause of action arose, or
the law by which it is controlled, or the residence or convenience of the parties and witnesses, or the
difficulty the court would encounter in attempting to interpret and enforce a foreign contract, or the
interference with other business of the court. On the other hand, the defendants, while conceding that
the court has jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter, urged that it should refuse, in its
discretion, to exercise such jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether the Oregon District Court has the discretion to refuse to proceed with the case
RULING: YES

The Court found that none of the causes of action arose in the district, nor do any of the material
witnesses reside in the district, nor are any of the records of the defendant companies pertaining to
the policies in suit in the district, but such records are either at the home office in New York or at their
offices in Germany. The courts of Germany and New York are open and functioning and competent to
take jurisdiction of the controversies, and service can be made upon the defendants in either of such
jurisdictions. To require the defendants to defend the actions in the district would impose upon them
great and unnecessary inconvenience and expense, and probably compel them to produce in the
said district numerous records, books, and papers, all of which are in daily use by it in taking care of
current business. In addition, it would consume months of the time of the court to try and dispose of
these cases, resulting in delay, inconvenience, and expense to other litigants who are entitled to
invoke its jurisdiction.

Whether to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the case is matter resting in the Court’s discretion.
The courts have repeatedly refused, in their discretion, to entertain jurisdiction of causes of action
arising in a foreign jurisdiction, where both parties are nonresidents of the forum.

Forum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows courts to dismiss a case where
another court, or forum, is much better suited to hear the case. This dismissal does not prevent
a plaintiff from re-filing his or her case in the more appropriate forum. See Res Judicata. This
doctrine may be invoked by either the defendant, or by the court. See sua sponte.