Opinion ID: 1343045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Access to Sources of Proof

Text: The first private interest under the Gilbert analysis mentioned in Tsapis is  `the relative ease of access to sources of proof[.]'  184 W.Va. at 234, 400 S.E.2d at 242. (Citations omitted). In its final order, the circuit court found the property and documents pertaining to the property, which include reports by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Department of Public Health ..., the Chippewa County Public Health Department, and certain USEPA documents, are more easily accessible in Michigan than they are in West Virginia. In addition, the circuit court stated that Michigan is convenient to obtain documents from Algoma Ltd. in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Cannelton's insurance brokers in Toronto, Ontario; and USEPA Region V headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. Therefore, the circuit court concluded [t]he sources of proof in this action most likely will be located predominantly in Michigan and not West Virginia. Cannelton argues the main sources of proof are the insurance policies and not the actual property or the environmental documents pertaining to the property. Cannelton claims its policies are located in West Virginia and some of Algoma's insurance documents are also in West Virginia. Therefore, Cannelton contends West Virginia is the most convenient forum. On the other hand, the defendants assert that [t]he main sources of proof, to determine what transpired on the property, such as witnesses, the property itself, and necessary documents, are located in or near Chippewa County, Michigan. At first glance, Cannelton's argument that this action is a contractual dispute and can be resolved merely by examining the insurance policies and other related insurance records seems persuasive. However, as Cannelton raised in the preceding section, see Section III(B)(4), a majority of the insurance policies at issue here contain an exclusion clause similar to that in Joy Technologies, supra . Therefore, documents, testimony, and evidence related to the property may be critical in determining whether or not there is insurance coverage. Such information would be necessary to characterize the nature and cause of the pollution to determine if the exclusion will apply. Regardless of where this action is heard, we realize documents will need to be photocopied and transported to the forum state. It appears that relevant sources of proof exist in West Virginia, Michigan, and Canada. Given these facts, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding the ease of availability of the sources of proof favors Michigan over West Virginia. 2.