Durkin v. Intevac, Inc. (Connecticut Supreme Court)

The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted this interlocutory appeal to consider whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens remains viable in Connecticut state courts. The appeal arises out of a product liability action brought on behalf of sixteen residents of Australia and the administrators of the estates of thirteen deceased residents of Australia stemming from a mid-air collision in Australia of two helicopters owned and operated by the Australian army. Following the accident, a military Board of Inquiry (BOI) conducted an extensive investigation during which it took evidence from 144 witnesses and accepted 215 exhibits. The BOI expressly found that "no aircraft maintenance or engineering factor contributed to this accident." The plaintiffs, however, allege in Connecticut Superior Court that defects in night vision goggles and Blackhawk helicopters caused the collision. The defendants moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The trial court denied these motions despite finding that Australia is an adequate forum and that the public interest favors Australia as a forum over Connecticut. On behalf of itself and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, NELF submitted an amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that, if the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not available, foreign plaintiffs who can satisfy minimal jurisdictional requirements and whose claims would otherwise be dismissed from federal and the vast majority of state courts, would be encouraged to bring their claims in Connecticut at great cost to companies doing business there and the Connecticut judiciary. On October 30, 2001, the Court agreed with NELF's position and held that the doctrine remains a viable part of Connecticut common law.