Lawsuit against Eastman Chemical Company Dismissed

October 25th, 2017 by Katherine Coig

A judge has dismissed the April 15 lawsuit against Eastman Chemical Company for allegedly selling faulty window films. The lawsuit was brought forth by Sae Han Sheet Co. Ltd. (SHSC), a South Korean distributor, and was filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York.

SHSC claimed Eastman wanted to cut costs post-merger of Commonwealth Laminating and Coating Inc. (CLC), and, therefore, removed one of the three key ingredients in SunTek automotive films.

Although SHSC was an international distributor, it is authorized to do business in New York, where the alleged defective films were shipped from. Therefore, jurisdiction was to preside in the state.

However, in May, Eastman Chemical motioned to dismiss the case due to lack of personal and general jurisdiction or, alternatively, to have the case transferred to the Western District of Virginia, where the product in question was manufactured. Since Eastman Chemical is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Tennessee, Marshall Beil, attorney for Eastman Chemical and CLC, argued that general jurisdiction over the defendants was inconsistent with due process.

Beil further argued that Sae Han did not provide adequate evidence to suggest sufficient contacts between the defendants and New York to justify general jurisdiction, and, while the Eastman defendants do business in New York, neither had “continuous and systematic so as to give rise to general jurisdiction.”

Due to lack of personal jurisdiction, Edgardo Ramos, the presiding judge, granted Eastman’s motion to dismiss the case.

This article is from Focus on Film, the weekly e-newsletter that covers the latest news regarding window film and related products, including paint protection film. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Window Film magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

Tags:

4 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Dismissed on a technicality of jurisdiction. The Koreans lawyers should have seen this coming in my opinion and advised his client.Leon Levy Klingshield South Africa

  2. Does anyone know what key change they made to their film, that allegedly made it a faulty product? Also, is this a key change to the auto films that SunTek dealers should be concerned with?

  3. I would not worry about it as I am sure that if you have any major come backs in the USA SunTek will have to come to the party.
    When they sell film outside of the USA they do not offer guarantees from a document I have come across and studies. All very sneaky.
    Anyhow don’t worry about a debt you might never have to pay.
    Leon Levy Klingshield South Africa.

  4. In regards to the defective film, do we know what the change was that deemed it a faulty?
    Thanks
    David

Leave Comment

X
This site uses cookies which allow us to give you the best browsing experience possible. Cookies are files stored in your browser and are used by most websites to help personalize your web experience. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please see our Privacy Policy.