## Facts

- Dennis Ferren worked for General Motors at a Kansas plant from 1961 to 1974 and alleged occupational exposure to lead dust during that employment.
- In 1974, Dennis and Judith Ferren moved to New Hampshire and remained domiciliaries there.
- In 1989, while living in New Hampshire, Dennis was diagnosed with a lead-related illness allegedly caused by the earlier Kansas exposure.
- The Ferrens sued General Motors in federal court in New Hampshire; Dennis asserted personal injury claims and Judith asserted loss of consortium.
- General Motors contended the claims were barred under Kansas law, including workers’ compensation exclusivity and Kansas limitations rules; the Ferrens argued New Hampshire’s discovery rule would make the claims timely.
- The federal district court certified choice-of-law questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Under New Hampshire choice-of-law rules, whether New Hampshire law (including its discovery rule for latent injuries) or Kansas law governs tort claims arising from workplace exposure in Kansas but discovered after the plaintiffs became New Hampshire domiciliaries.
2. Whether Kansas limitations and workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions should be treated as part of Kansas substantive policy for purposes of the conflicts analysis.

## Decision

- The court held that Kansas law governs the Ferrens’ claims.
- The court concluded that Kansas’s workers’ compensation and related limitations policy applied, rather than New Hampshire’s discovery rule.
- The certified questions were answered in a manner that required the federal court to apply Kansas law, under which the action would be barred.

## Legal Principles

- New Hampshire applies an interest-analysis/“most significant relationship” approach in tort choice-of-law, considering both state contacts and the policies served by competing laws.
- Although statutes of limitations are generally treated as procedural in New Hampshire, a foreign limitation rule may be applied when it is closely tied to the foreign state’s substantive policy (including a workers’ compensation scheme).
- In workplace-exposure cases, the state where the employment relationship is centered and the injury-producing conduct occurred has a strong regulatory interest in applying its workers’ compensation exclusivity and liability-limiting rules.
- A plaintiff’s later domicile and place of diagnosis may be insufficient to displace the law of the employment state when the other state’s compensation system reflects a comprehensive allocation of rights and liabilities for workplace injuries.

## Conclusion

Applying New Hampshire’s interest-based conflicts method, the court determined Kansas had the predominant relationship to the alleged occupational exposure and the controlling interest in regulating employer liability for workplace injuries, so Kansas workers’ compensation and limitations law governed and barred the claims.


Ferren v. Gen. Motors Corp., 628 A.2d 265 (N.H. 1993)