SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-4989-16T1

 A-4990-16T1

 A-4991-16T1

 A-3204-17T1

RAYMOND REBBECK and SHELIA

MARY REBBECK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., 

as Successor in the Interest 

to the Bendix Corporation,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________

DAVID HARVEY and SHARON

HARVEY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., 

as Successor in the Interest 

to the Bendix Corporation,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4989-16T1

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

ROGER WILLIAMS and SARAH

BEAUCHAMP-WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., 

as Successor in the Interest 

to the Bendix Corporation,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

LESLIE JAMES GARDNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., 

as Successor in the Interest 

to the Bendix Corporation,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

Argued January 23, 2019 – Decided March 5, 2019

Before Judges Hoffman, Suter and Firko.
3

A-4989-16T1

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Docket Nos. L-4286-16, 

L-6318-15, L-2314-16 and L-6817-16.

Daniel J. Woodard argued the cause for appellants 

Raymond and Sheila Mary Rebbeck in A-4989-16, 

David and Sharon Harvey in A-4990-16, and Roger 

Williams and Sarah Beauchamp-Williams in A-4991-

16 (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein, Blader, PC, and 

Brendan J. Tully (Phillips & Paolicelli) of the New 

York bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Robert E. 

Lytle, on the briefs).

Daniel J. Woodard argued the cause for appellant Leslie 

James Gardner in A-3204-17 (Phillips & Paolicelli, 

LLP, attorneys; Daniel J. Woodard, on the briefs).

John C. Garde argued the cause for respondents 

(McCarter & English, LLP, and Gibbons PC, attorneys; 

John C. Garde and Ethan D. Stein, of counsel; Jean P. 

Patterson and Elizabeth K. Monahan, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, we address the dismissal of the asbestos-related product 

liability claims of now-deceased residents of the United Kingdom (U.K.), 

plaintiffs1 Raymond Rebbeck, David Harvey, Roger Williams, and Leslie James 

Gardner, against defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) on the 

 

1

 The spouses of Rebbeck, Harvey, and Williams also sue per quod. We 

previously consolidated the Rebbeck, Harvey, and Williams cases for purposes 

of this opinion. Since the Gardner appeal was heard back-to-back on the same 

calendar, we consolidate it for purposes of this opinion as well.

 
4

A-4989-16T1

ground of forum non conveniens. After careful review, we affirm the Law 

Division orders of dismissal in each case, but remand for the entry of a modified 

order in the Gardner case to mirror the dismissal orders in the other cases.

The central facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs were lifetime residents of 

the U.K., where they worked as automobile mechanics. Part of their jobs 

entailed installing replacement brakes – plaintiffs contend they predominately 

installed Bendix Corporation brakes, which at the time contained asbestos. 

Plaintiffs claim that the asbestos dust they inhaled from those brakes caused 

them to develop mesothelioma. 

Between October 2015 and November 2016, plaintiffs filed their 

complaints against Honeywell as the successor in interest to Bendix 

Corporation.2 Incorporated in Delaware, Honeywell maintains its principal 

place of business in New Jersey. Plaintiffs' complaints alleged breach of express 

and implied warranties, the marketing of an ultra-hazardous product, breach of 

the duty to warn, and that Honeywell "willfully . . . with[e]ld information from 

[p]laintiff[s] . . . and the general public." 

 

2

 Bendix merged into Allied Corporation, which merged into Allied Signal, Inc., 

which merged into Honeywell, Inc.
5

A-4989-16T1

The parties conducted limited discovery, including the depositions of 

plaintiffs before they died. Honeywell then filed motions to dismiss based on 

the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The parties submitted voluminous factual 

materials in support of and in opposition to the motions, including affidavits 

from asbestos litigation experts in the U.K.: Patrick Gerard Walsh and Harry 

David Glyn Steinberg, on behalf of plaintiffs; and Nicholas Aidin Pargeter on 

behalf of Honeywell. 

After hearing oral argument, Judge Jane B. Cantor issued an oral opinion 

granting Honeywell's motion to dismiss in the Rebbeck, Harvey, and Williams

cases based on forum non conveniens. After hearing oral argument in the 

Gardner case, Judge Ana C. Viscomi granted Honeywell's motion to dismiss, 

also based on forum non conveniens. She issued a written opinion setting forth 

the reasons for her decision. These appeals followed.

Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine, and its application is left 

to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Kurzke v. Nissan Motor Corp. in 

U.S.A., 164 N.J. 159, 165 (2000). Accordingly, we will not intervene absent a 

clear abuse of discretion. Civic S. Factors Corp. v. Bonat, 65 N.J. 329, 332 

(1974). The essence of forum non conveniens is that a court may decline 

jurisdiction "whenever the ends of justice indicate a trial in the forum selected 
6

A-4989-16T1

by the plaintiff would be inappropriate." D'Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, 

Inc., 225 N.J. Super. 250, 259 (App. Div. 1988).

The defendant,

as the entity invoking the doctrine of forum non 

conveniens, bears the burden of establishing that New 

Jersey is not a convenient forum for this litigation. 

[Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 

(1981).] However, less deference is accorded to [the] 

plaintiffs' forum choice in this case than would 

normally be accorded because of [the] plaintiffs' 

residence in the U.K., not in this State. Id. at 255-56. 

When the home forum has been chosen, it is reasonable 

to assume that this choice is convenient. When the 

plaintiff is foreign, however, this assumption is much 

less reasonable. Because the central purpose of any 

forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial 

is convenient, a foreign plaintiff's choice deserves less 

deference. Ibid.

[In re Vioxx Litig., 395 N.J. Super. 358, 364-65 (App. 

Div. 2007).]

The first inquiry by the court on a dismissal application based on forum 

non conveniens is whether there is an adequate alternative forum for the case 

where the defendant is amenable to service of process and the subject matter of 

the dispute may be litigated. Varo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 400 N.J. Super. 508, 

519-20 (App. Div. 2008). Assuming a proper alternative forum, the court must 

consider and weigh both public and private interest factors to determine whether 
7

A-4989-16T1

the plaintiff's choice of forum is appropriate for the matters in issue. Gulf Oil 

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947).

The public interest factors are as follows:

(1) the administrative difficulties which follow from 

having litigation "pile up in congested centers" rather 

than being handled at its origin, (2) the imposition of 

jury duty on members of a community having no 

relation to the litigation, (3) the local interest in the 

subject matter such that affected members of the 

community may wish to view the trial[,] and (4) the 

local interest "in having localized controversies 

decided at home."

[Aguerre v. Schering-Plough Corp., 393 N.J. Super. 

459, 474 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330 

U.S. at 508-09).]

The private interest factors are:

(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2) 

the availability of compulsory process for attendance of 

unwilling witnesses and the cost of obtaining the 

attendance of willing witnesses, (3) whether a view of 

the premises is appropriate to the action[,] and (4) all 

other practical problems that make trial of the case 

"easy, expeditious and inexpensive," including the 

enforceability of the ultimate judgment.

[Ibid.]

Judge Cantor stated in her oral opinion that the U.K. is a proper alternative 

forum since plaintiffs were residents of the U.K., and they have the right to bring 

suit against Honeywell in the U.K. She added that if a U.K. court should reject 
8

A-4989-16T1

plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the U.K. does not hear product liability cases 

brought by claimants who used an allegedly defective product during the course 

of their employment, then she would "invite these cases back." In her written 

opinion, Judge Viscomi found the U.K. constitutes an adequate alternative 

forum because the parties agree the U.K. processes workplace asbestos litigation 

against claimants' employers. 

Having found an adequate alternative forum, the judges went on to address 

the public and private interests. Judge Cantor stressed the administrative 

difficulties having the cases in New Jersey, and that the U.K "has a much greater 

local interest in the international impact of products [imported] into [its] 

country." 

Applying the public interest factors, Judge Viscomi found:

1) . . . . Middlesex is the [Multicounty Litigation]

jurisdiction for asbestos cases. Presently pending are 

over 400 cases with approximately 100 [attorneys] 

representing living mesothelioma plaintiffs. Their 

cases are expedited. Opening the docket to European 

residents who have an adequate alternative forum 

would delay the disposition of United States residents[']

claims, particularly those who have been diagnosed 

with mesothelioma. 2) . . . . The Middlesex jurors 

would be asked to sit on a case involving a foreign 

plaintiff and a foreign defendant. The products at issue 

were manufactured in Europe. 3) . . . . There would 

be no local interest in the Middlesex jurors given that 

both . . . plaintiff and . . . defendant's products are 
9

A-4989-16T1

foreign. The public interest would inure to the 

plaintiff's community in the [U.K.] to observe the

proceeding there. And [4)] the local interest in having 

localized controversies decided at home. This factor 

inured to the localized interest in the [U.K.] and not 

Middlesex County.

In addressing the private interest factors, Judge Viscomi found:

1) The relative ease of access to sources of proof rests 

primarily, if not exclusively in the [U.K.] Plaintiff has 

never been in New Jersey. Pursuing a product liability 

claim would require extensive discovery process in the 

[U.K.] as to alternate exposure and medical treatment. 

2) . . . . All of the witnesses, with the exception of 

perhaps some, if any, corporate witnesses are in the 

[U.K.] Would they all come to the United States: 

Would the court be able to secure their attendance? 3) 

Whether a view of the premises is appropriate to the 

action. . . . generally does not apply in asbestos 

litigation. 4) . . . . This court would have to apply 

[U.K.] law and instruct the jury as to [U.K.] law.

However, she declined to dismiss Gardner's complaint without prejudice, 

instead entering a "with prejudice" dismissal. 

Contrary to plaintiffs' arguments on appeal, we find no clear showing of 

an abuse of discretion by either trial judge. There is no suggestion that the U.K. 

would not provide a proper forum to adjudicate this matter, particularly via 

claims against plaintiffs' former employers. Plaintiffs did not establish that their 

claims cannot be filed against Honeywell in the U.K., conceding that such claims 

are "technically possible," although with "practical impediments." 
10 A-4989-16T1

Honeywell's expert explained that bringing a suit such as plaintiffs' 

against a former employer is more common than filing against the product 

manufacturer, as

the level of damages which a plaintiff will receive is the 

same whether the claim is brought in [employer 

liability], public liability[,] or product liability. The 

principle of compensatory damages [in the U.K.]

mandates that a claimant will be no better or worse off 

depending upon which cause of action his claim is 

based. Simply put[,] once a plaintiff in the [U.K.] has 

been compensated by an employer, the plaintiff cannot 

successfully make an additional claim against a 

manufacturer[,] because the claimant would be seeking 

damages for the same harm[,] and is not entitled to 

double compensation.

Honeywell's expert went on to explain the additional costs and financial risks 

that claimants such as plaintiffs would incur while suing a product manufacturer 

such as Honeywell, as opposed to their employers. The additional cost and risk, 

combined with the availability of essentially the same remedy against 

employers, explain why it is more common and practical for U.K. claimants to 

sue their employers as opposed to the product manufacturer; however, this 

reality does not make the U.K. an inadequate alternative forum. As we 

previously held:

[W]e have difficulty accepting the position of a group 

of residents of the U.K. that perceived inadequacies in 

the tort and damages laws and the rules for funding and 
11 A-4989-16T1

cost allocation of their countries of residence entitle 

them to seek justice in New Jersey where the law and 

fee arrangements are more favorable. By this 

argument, plaintiffs essentially contend that the U.K. 

provides an inadequate forum for the resolution of the 

disputes of the English and Welsh living within its 

borders. We do not regard the claimed inadequacies of 

one country's system of funding suits and allocating 

costs as a ticket to relief elsewhere, but rather, as a 

subject for legislative or court reform, should such be 

warranted.

[In re Vioxx Litig., 395 N.J. Super. at 373-74.]

We are further satisfied there was no clear showing of an abuse of 

discretion regarding either judge's evaluation of the private and public interest

factors. The case is "localized" in the U.K., not New Jersey, as all of the alleged 

claims arose from employment in the U.K., where most witnesses in the cases 

reside. We also acknowledge Judge Viscomi's summary of the extent of 

asbestos litigation currently pending in Middlesex County, and the potential 

floodgates that could open if we begin importing cases from European countries 

with adequate forums, and the effect that would have on our courts and the 

claims of our residents. Since the public factors are sufficient to sustain a forum 

non conveniens application, we need not consider the private factors. See id. at 

379-80.
12 A-4989-16T1

Lastly, we agree with Judge Cantor's view that this matter should return 

to New Jersey if the U.K. should decline to accept jurisdiction over plaintiffs' 

claims. Such a conditional order of dismissal without prejudice was correctly 

entered in the Rebbeck, Harvey, and Williams cases. We conclude the order

dismissing the Gardner case should contain the same conditional language as

the orders entered in the other cases.3

Affirmed but remanded for the entry of an amended order of dismissal in 

the Gardner case. We do not retain jurisdiction.

 

3

 At oral argument, Honeywell's counsel consented to this amendment to the 

order dismissing the Gardner case.