AIG Property Casualty Company v. 3M Company

Background

AIG Property Casualty Company, formerly identified as Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania and Birmingham Fire Insurance Company, and other insurers sued 3M Company and other defendants. The insurers sought a declaration that they were not required to defend or indemnify 3M in thousands of underlying lawsuits alleging that 3M’s manufacture of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances caused injuries and damage.

3M notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) that this action might belong in an existing products-liability multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of South Carolina. The JPML issued a Conditional Transfer Order, and it scheduled consideration of the insurers’ motion to vacate that order for January 30, 2025.

Motion and Arguments

3M moved to stay, or pause, all proceedings until the JPML made its final transfer decision. It also sought additional time to respond to the complaint. The insurers opposed the motion, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the case should be remanded to state court.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it has discretion to stay proceedings to manage its docket. Courts may stay cases while the JPML considers whether to transfer them to multidistrict litigation. The court considered three factors: possible prejudice to the party opposing the stay, hardship or unfairness to the party seeking the stay, and the effect of a stay on judicial resources.

The court agreed with 3M that all three factors supported a stay. It was not persuaded that the insurers would be harmed by a pause lasting a few weeks or months. It also found that continuing to litigate multiple related lawsuits across the country would impose a significant burden on 3M and that a stay would conserve substantial judicial resources.

The court rejected the insurers’ argument that it should decide jurisdiction before allowing the transfer process to continue. It relied on authority stating that jurisdictional objections, including objections to removal, do not control whether a case should be transferred to multidistrict litigation. The court also cited cases in which courts granted stays despite pending jurisdictional objections. The court did not resolve the insurers’ jurisdiction arguments on the merits.

Disposition

The court granted 3M Company’s Motion for Stay Pending the JPML’s Final Transfer Decision. The case was stayed pending the JPML’s final decision on whether to transfer it to the multidistrict litigation proceeding concerning Aqueous Film-Forming Foams products liability. The court also extended 3M’s deadline to respond to the complaint until 30 days after the JPML issued its final decision.