The Constitution and Choice of Law

Question 1

Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment):
NY Life Ins. v. Dodge

Answer 1

a. Relationship of law to the individual (due process rights of individual parties)
b. Issue: fundamental fairness and exception

insurance contract was made in NY; all other contacts were with MO; plaintiff sued in MO because that was the only forum in which he could recover.

held the place where the contract was entered into was sufficient to avoid a deprivation of due process, and there was no due process to sue defendant in MO.

Question 2

Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment):
Hartford v. Delta & Pine

Answer 2

MS/TN corporation entered into insurance contract in TN; MS and TN law conflicted with regard to statutory deadline to file a claim.

held MS law (forum) deprived the defendant of due process because of the limited and casual contact which the defendant had with MS; this case requires more than New York Life and instead looks to actual contacts like Dick.

Question 3

Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment):
Home Ins. v. Dick

Answer 3

Rule: where a state has nothing to do with the transaction at hand, it may not apply a forum law that would deprive a party of due process.

defendants had no contact with TX, so application of TX law violation their due process

Question 4

Full Faith & Credit:

Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper (NH Worker’s Comp)

Answer 4

a. Relationship between and among the states
b. Issue: considerations of national unity

Rule: a state must have a real policy interest in the application of its law in order to apply its law over that of another interested state without violating full faith and credit.

NH did violate full faith and credit because NH did not demonstrate any interest in the application of its law to a VT employer and VT employee.

Question 5

Full Faith & Credit:

Pacific Employers Ins. Co.

Answer 5

Mass. employee was working for a Mass. employer in CA branch and was injured there;

court held CA law could apply by distinguishing Clapper because NH did not have an interest in that case but CA does here) [Note that there is no balancing at all here – any interest is sufficient to subordinate the other state’s law!]

Question 6

Full Faith & Credit:

Caroll v. Lanza

Answer 6

MO subcontractor working for a MO employer was injured in Arkansas but is treated in MO; employees were limited to workers comp in MO, but Arkansas law allowed employees to sue general contractor as well;

court held Arkansas law could apply because Arkansas had an interest in cases like this) [Note that the court definitively rejects balancing here!]

AR’s interests are large and considerable.
State where the tort occurs has a concern in the problems following in wake of the injury.