Asbestos Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When Dissolved Corporations May Be Sued Greb v Diamond International Corp ___Cal.4th____(2/21/13)

by Low, Ball & Lynch
Contact

Dissolved corporations are frequently sued after their dissolution has taken place in an effort to reach insurance policy coverage for the claim being made.  California has a statute, Corporation Code §2010, which does not limit the time for bringing lawsuits against dissolved corporations.  Other states have statutes which do place a time limit on such suits.  For corporations that were formed in a state with a time limit on such suits but which are sued in California, the question arises: which state’s law is applicable? In the case of Greb v Diamond International Corp., decided February 21, 2013, the California Supreme Court held that California law will not apply in such situations and that the law of the corporation’s domicile will be applicable.

In Greb, the plaintiffs sued in California for personal injury and loss of consortium as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.  The defendant, a dissolved Delaware corporation, demurred to the complaint and alleged it had obtained a corporate dissolution in accordance with the laws of Delaware on July 1, 2005.  The defendant also asserted it lacked the capacity to be sued because Delaware law provides that a dissolved corporation shall continue to exist for purposes of winding up its affairs, including prosecuting and defending lawsuits, for a period of only three years from the date of dissolution.  Because plaintiffs’ complaint was filed more than three years after the dissolution, defendant claimed the lawsuit was barred.  Plaintiff argued the lawsuit was permitted under California Corporations Code § 2010, which they asserted took precedence over Delaware law.
 
The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer, without leave to amend, and dismissed the suit.  The Court of Appeal reviewed the matter and affirmed the trial court’s decision.  The Supreme Court, noting that there were diverging opinions among the Courts of Appeal, affirmed the opinion of the Court of Appeal.
 
Because conflicting laws of California and Delaware were involved, the Court invoked “choice of law” principles which require a three-step analysis: First, the court determines whether the relevant law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the particular issue in question is the same or different.  Second, if there is a difference, the court examines each jurisdiction’s interest in the application of its own law under the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether a true conflict exists.  Third, if the court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and compares the nature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction in the application of its own law to determine which state’s interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state, and then ultimately applies the law of the state whose interest would be the more impaired if its law were not applied.
 
The Court first considered the plaintiffs’ argument that the California statutory scheme included corporations that transact business in California as corporations “organized” in California and, therefore, are subject to §2010’s unlimited time limit for suit.  The Court disagreed with plaintiffs’ assertion that foreign corporations that have qualified to undertake “repeated and successive transactions of its business in this state” are thereby rendered “organized under” California’s Corporation Law, and hence subject to its myriad provisions, including §2010.  Accordingly, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ interpretation of the California corporate statutes.
 
The Court next considered the plaintiffs’ argument that §2010 applied to foreign corporations under the compulsion of article XII, former section 15, of the California Constitution, which, although repealed by the electorate in 1972, provided that corporations “organized outside the limits of this State” — e.g., foreign corporations — “shall [not] be allowed to transact business” in this state “on more favorable conditions than” corporations “organized under the laws of this State.”  The Court noted that underlying plaintiffs’ argument in this respect are two premises:  (1) pursuant to article XII, former section 15, the “original meaning” of the survival statute in 1929 (and thereafter) was that it covered both domestic and foreign corporations (otherwise foreign corporations would “be allowed to transact business” in this state “on more favorable conditions than” domestic corporations); and (2) accordingly, the repeal of article XII, former section 15 in 1972 did not alter that asserted original reach of the survival statute; instead, the constitutional provision lives on, at least insofar as the survival statute is concerned.  After exhaustive analysis of the statutory and case history, the Court concluded that, based on that history, it disagreed with the implicit assumption of plaintiffs and a contrary Court of Appeal opinion that in 1929, when the survival statute was enacted, the general understanding was that article XII, former section 15, meant that all statutory burdens imposed on domestic corporations also would apply to foreign corporations — even if the particular statute did not specify that it would apply to foreign as well as domestic corporations, and instead concluded that the survival statute should properly be interpreted to apply to domestic corporations only.
 
Finally, the Court considered plaintiffs’ argument that as a matter of policy §2010 should apply because of defendant’s history of transacting business in California from the 1930s through the 1980s, when it surrendered its certificate of qualification.  They asserted that defendant, having been dormant for nearly two decades, strategically filed for dissolution in Delaware in 2005 in order to cut off its continuing liability (and recovery of damages through applicable undistributed insurance assets) to asbestos victims.  Plaintiffs argued that this course of conduct “directly contravenes California policy.  When foreign corporations seek and accept the benefits of transacting business here, California law should not allow them to use their home state’s corporate-friendly laws to deprive California citizens of their remedies.”  However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that the policy question concerning whether the provisions of California’s survival statute should apply to foreign as well as domestic corporations is properly a matter to be determined by the Legislature, not this Court.  The Court found that the history and language of the statutes simply do not support the proposition that §2010, at its inception or today, governed or governs foreign in addition to domestic corporations.
 
COMMENT AND EVALUATION

In this clear, unequivocal, and unanimous opinion, the Court has laid to rest the claim that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued after the time provided by the laws under which they were incorporated.  It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs’ bar will seek to change the statute in the Legislature to make it applicable to foreign corporations and, if that should happen, whether the change would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

For a copy of the complete decision, see: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S183365.PDF

Written by:

Low, Ball & Lynch
Contact
more
less

Low, Ball & Lynch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.