PROVIDENCE — In a matter closely followed by national business groups, the state Supreme Court is ordering the dismissal of 39 asbestos cases that Canadian residents had filed in Rhode Island.

With the ruling, the Supreme Court said Rhode Island is joining 46 other states and the federal government in recognizing a doctrine that allows courts to decline to handle cases if — in the interest of “convenience, efficiency and justice” — they conclude the cases should proceed elsewhere.

Previously, Rhode Island had only recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens (Latin for “an unsuitable court”) in child-custody cases, but the Supreme Court is now giving the doctrine more general recognition as “part of our jurisprudential landscape.”

The lawsuits were filed against corporations that conduct business in Rhode Island. But none of the defendants are incorporated or has its principal place of business here, and all of the plaintiffs are Canadian residents whose employment, exposure and treatment occurred in Canada, the court said.

“Our courts in Rhode Island must stand open to provide remedies to those who have been injured and to treat all litigants fairly,” Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Suttell wrote. “Our courts, however, need not resolve disputes of all persons who choose to file suit in Rhode Island. In the 39 cases under review, we are unable to discern any nexus with the state of Rhode Island.”

In May 2005, Superior Court Judge Alice B. Gibney refused to dismiss the cases, saying Rhode Island was one of the few states in which neither the legislature nor the state’s highest court had recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens generally. Gibney said Superior Court had proper jurisdiction over the cases and she indicated she could handle the 39 cases since the court was not “mired in asbestos litigation.”

But the Supreme Court directed Superior Court to dismiss the cases — provided the defendants don’t argue that it’s now too late to file the suits somewhere else.

In a 23-page decision, the Supreme Court weighed the public and private interests involved. For example, the court said, “A jury may have to sit through a complicated trial that literally has no connection to Rhode Island besides a generalized interest that is constant throughout the entire United States … the interest in preventing asbestos-related diseases.”

The cases involved defendants such as General Electric Co. and Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company Inc. The appeal prompted legal briefs from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. And the ruling decision elicited praise from the American Tort Reform Association, which called it “a victory for Ocean State taxpayers and citizens called to jury duty.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a solid step toward keeping Rhode Island from becoming known as a ‘judicial hellhole,’ ” association President Tiger Joyce said in a news release, referring to the group’s annual Judicial Hellholes report. “If the high court wants to keep the Ocean State moving in the right direction, it will also reverse lower courts in the controversial ‘lead paint as a public nuisance’ case after it hears arguments” later this week.

Donald A. Migliori — a Rhode Island lawyer from the national law firm Motley Rice, which is also involved in the lead paint litigation — said the involvement of groups such as the American Tort Reform Association “tells you this isn’t about trying to get justice for victims. It’s about trying to represent the interests of corporate America, and in this case corporations won over the worker. That’s a sad but common reality.”

Migliori said it was “disingenuous” for defendants to claim it would be inconvenient to defend the cases in Rhode Island because they have defended numerous other asbestos cases here over the past 15 years.

“I’m surprised because, generally speaking, our Supreme Court has worked hard to make our judicial system effective and efficient,” Migliori said. “And I think ultimately this is going to make it more difficult for these victims to have their cases appropriately managed.”

Many of the plaintiffs worked in Canadian factories and power plants where material containing asbestos was being installed or repaired, and the defendants are from many different places in the world, Migliori said. Motley Rice has represented people in asbestos cases throughout the United States and Canada for 20 years, and it has found that the Rhode Island Superior Court’s asbestos case docket is “efficient, fair and not one-sided,” he said.

“We can pursue cases in other places, but an efficient docket like Judge Gibney’s docket allows us to actually get into meaningful negotiations with the defendants and get the victims through this negotiating process faster,” Migliori said. “We have never had to try an asbestos case in 15 years in Rhode Island because Judge Gibney is so effective and efficient in administering these cases that the cases that deserve to be settled are settled and those that deserve to be dismissed are dismissed.”

The Canadian system is not always effective and efficient, Migliori said. “My view is the Rhode Island system cares about workers no matter where they come from, as long as you have jurisdiction over the defendants,” he said.

The Supreme Court said, “It cannot be disputed that Canada has a legal system capable of affording the possibility of remedies to the plaintiffs in the underlying cases.” And only Canadian courts have the legal power to compel the testimony of Canadian witnesses not under the control of any party, the court said.

“Because no one other than the attorneys involved actually is located in Rhode Island, literally all the witnesses and parties would have to travel to Rhode Island for the trial and other proceedings,” Suttell wrote. “We are of the opinion, therefore, that the relevant private-interest factors militate in favor of dismissal.”

efitzpat@projo.com