What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
By contacting Sugarman Rogers through this website, you agree to the following terms and conditions:
If you are not already a client of Sugarman Rogers, communicating with the firm through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of our attorneys. Our decision as to whether and on what terms we may agree to represent a client involves consideration of a variety of factors, discussion with the prospective client, and, where appropriate, a written engagement agreement. We cannot guarantee whether or when we may agree to accept your case.
Please do not use this form of communication to transmit any private, personally identifying, or other confidential information. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality or security of this means of communication.
May 15, 2013
The plaintiff, a Mexican insurance company, filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court to recover $75MM in property damage sustained as a result of a catastrophic fire at its Mexican insured’s plant in Mexico. The plaintiff asserted claims against Sugarman Rogers’s client, a large American manufacturer of lighting products, and another company whose principal place of business is in Massachusetts. Before filing an answer to the Complaint, partners David A. Barry and Andrea Studley Knowles prepared and served a motion to dismiss, contending that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over their client would violate the principles of constitutional due process. Sugarman Rogers also argued that even if jurisdiction were proper, the Complaint should be dismissed under the separate doctrine of forum non conveniens because Mexico would provide an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests strongly favored litigating the plaintiff’s claims in Mexico. Shortly before its opposition to the motion was due, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the action against our client only, while reserving its right to file those claims in another venue.
|
|
Plaintiff agrees to dismiss $75 million products claim |
Date: May 15, 2013 |
Case Report |
David A. Barry, Andrea Studley Knowles |
Related Services: Product Liability |
||
|
The plaintiff, a Mexican insurance company, filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court to recover $75MM in property damage sustained as a result of a catastrophic fire at its Mexican insured’s plant in Mexico. The plaintiff asserted claims against Sugarman Rogers’s client, a large American manufacturer of lighting products, and another company whose principal place of business is in Massachusetts. Before filing an answer to the Complaint, partners David A. Barry and Andrea Studley Knowles prepared and served a motion to dismiss, contending that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over their client would violate the principles of constitutional due process. Sugarman Rogers also argued that even if jurisdiction were proper, the Complaint should be dismissed under the separate doctrine of forum non conveniens because Mexico would provide an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests strongly favored litigating the plaintiff’s claims in Mexico. Shortly before its opposition to the motion was due, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the action against our client only, while reserving its right to file those claims in another venue. |
Related People |
|||
David A. BarryPartner617.227.3030barry@sugarmanrogers.com |
Andrea Studley KnowlesPartner617.227.3030knowles@sugarmanrogers.com |
||