Sugarcane field. Photo: subin pumsom/Shutterstock.com

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a ruling determining that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit filed by Dominican farm workers against sugar companies over their exposure to toxic pesticides.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Jacqueline Shogan and Dan Pellegrini upheld a holding that the Philadelphia trial court had no jurisdiction over the defendants—all foreign or out-of-state corporations.

Plaintiffs Juan and Juana Fulano filed their lawsuit on behalf of other agricultural workers against defendants Fanjul Corp., Drexel Chemical Co., Inicia Ltd. and UPL Ltd., alleging that they were exposed to toxic pesticides and herbicides while working as fumigators in the sugar cane industry in the Dominican Republic, according to Pellegrini's opinion.

The plaintiffs claimed they suffered eye and skin irritation, headaches, difficulty breathing, chest and stomach pain, nausea and chronic coughing as a result of the exposure.

According to Pellegrini, they argued that the case could be heard in Philadelphia because both Fanjul and Inicia controlled "sugar empires" through their subsidiaries that produce and distribute sugar throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania. As for the pesticide producers, the Fulanos argued that Drexel registers and sells its products in Pennsylvania, while UPL has an in-state alter ego subsidiary, United Phosphorus Inc. (UPI), based in Montgomery County.

All of the defendants claimed they had insufficient contacts in state for the plaintiffs' claims to survive.

The Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Fanjul and Inicia were connected to Pennsylvania via a "stream of commerce."

In explaining the rejection regarding Inicia, Pellegrini said the plaintiffs provided "little argument about specific personal jurisdiction, arguing merely that 'the facts supported application of the stream of commerce theory to establish personal jurisdiction over Inicia.' As we explained in relation [to] Fanjul, this is a misapplication of the 'stream of commerce' theory of specific personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are Dominican residents who allege that they were injured in the Dominican Republic; they do not allege that Inicia produced a product that was placed into the stream of commerce that ultimately injured them in Pennsylvania."

As for Drexel, based in Memphis, and UPL, based in Mumbai, Pellegrini noted that neither of those companies is incorporated or has places of business in Pennsylvania.

Robert Vance Jr. represents the plaintiffs. In an email he said, "Plaintiffs are disappointed in the decision of the Superior Court, but will explore all available options in all available fora to obtain compensation for the injuries they suffered and continue to suffer caused by the defendants."

Matthew Goldberg of DLA Piper, who represents Inicia, praised the ruling. "The Superior Court handed down a thoughtful opinion and sent a clear message that this case does not belong in Pennsylvania," he said in an email.

David Helwig of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly represents Drexel and declined to comment.

Edward Butkovitz of Kleinbard represents UPL and Matthew Taylor of Duane Morris represents Fanjul. Both did not respond to requests for comment.