Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York trial court held that it lacked general or specific jurisdiction over a defendant in an asbestos liability case against multiple defendants.

Here, a plaintiff brought a New York state asbestos liability action against multiple defendants, including Burnham Holdings, Inc., and Burnham LLC. Burnham Holdings moved to dismiss on the basis that it had no connection to New York, preventing a New York court from having personal jurisdiction over it. Burnham Holdings argued that it was merely a holding company incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Burnham Holdings also asserted that it never placed any products into the stream of commerce. The plaintiff countered that Burnham LLC was Burnham Holdings’s alter ego such that it should be treated as one entity for personal jurisdiction purposes.

Granting the motion, the trial court reasoned that Burnham Holdings has established that it was a holding company that had not manufactured, distributed, supplied, or sold any asbestos-containing products and that it lacked a connection to New York, including owning any real estate there. Thus, the court said, the defendant established that it did not transact business in New York and had not committed a tortious act against the plaintiff within the state. The court also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish that Burnham LLC was an alter ego of Burnham Holdings. Although the entities shared employees, the court said, this is insufficient to prove alter ego status.

Consequently, the court held that general or specific jurisdiction had not been established.

Citation: Langella v. Amchem Prods., Inc., No. 190226/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cnty. Aug. 23, 2024).