June 12, 2018
In Turcotte, et al. v. 3M Company, et al., the Court (Gibney, J.) issued its ruling in response to the motions to apply foreign law filed by several defendants in this lawsuit. (PC-2016-3357, June 5, 2017). Plaintiff Gerard Turcotte alleged that he developed mesothelioma from being exposed to various asbestos-containing products throughout his career as an electrician and also while performing various home improvement projects.
Two defendants in this case requested that the Court apply the substantive laws of New Hampshire as to liability and Florida as to damages, whereas remaining defendants asked the Court to apply Florida law. The plaintiffs, Gerard and Alicia Turcotte, asked the Court to apply New Hampshire law.
Based on the facts of this case, the majority of Mr. Turcotte’s alleged exposure took place during his work in New Hampshire. He also performed some projects in other states, including a three-month-long construction project in Florida. He lived in New Hampshire from his birth to 1996, when he and his wife moved to Florida for retirement. The Turcottes bought two houses in Florida and continued to own a property in New Hampshire. Interestingly, Mr. Turcotte’s diagnosis and resulting treatment took place in different states.
The standard for applying foreign law in Rhode Island is two-fold: first, the Court must determine whether a true conflict exists, and then it will conduct an interest weighing analysis. In this case, after reviewing the relevant laws of Florida and New Hampshire, the Court determined that a true conflict existed between the applicable laws of those two states. Performing the second step of the analysis, the Court next determined which state had the more significant interest in having its laws applied. In doing so, the Court considered four specific factors: “1) the place where the injury occurred, 2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, 3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and 4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.” (quoting Brown v. Church of the Holy Names of Jesus, 105 R.I. 322, 326-27 (R.I. 1969). Judge Gibney also noted that additional policy considerations under the interest weighing standard were: “1) predictability of result, 2) maintenance of interstate and international order, 3) simplification of the judicial tasks, 4) advancement of the forum’s government interests, and 5) application of the better rule of law.” Najarian v. Nat’l Amusements, Inc., 768 A.2d 1253, 1255 (R.I. 2001). The Court ultimately concluded that New Hampshire had a greater interest in having its laws applied in this case.
The Court next considered the doctrine of “dépeçage,” a conflict of laws doctrine whereby different issues in a case may be governed by the laws of different states, in denying two defendants’ motions to apply New Hampshire law as to liability and Florida law as to damages. Judge Gibney noted that “it is the issues presented in a case to which dépeçage applies, not the different defendants in a case” and found that dépeçage could not be used to apply different states’ laws to different defendants. (quoting Gregory v. Beazer E., 892 N.E.2d 563, 580 (Ill. App. 2008).
As explained in the Turcotte decision, the choice of law issues are narrow and fact-driven, and counsel seeking the application of the laws of another state should research whether a true conflict exists and then conduct an interest weighing analysis to assess the likelihood of success on its motion to apply foreign law. This decision is also noteworthy in that it clarifies that the doctrine of dépeçage applies to the different issues in a cause of action and not to the different defendants.