morning your honour's ruling or the morgan appearing on behalf of pia the issue before the court this morning is whether or not the plaintiff who suffered a catastrophic burn injuries a motor vehicle accident due to a defect in her one nine hundred ninety nine jeep should suffer the burden of the loss of her cause of action by application of the indiana statute of repose where the vehicle in question enter the stream of commerce in michigan not indiana and the only context of this case to indiana are the traditional lex locust elect i type of contacts were both states have frankly abandoned lex locus to licht i as the relevant choice of law test our position rests on three grounds first that the facts of this case distinguish it from all the other previous cases that the defens cited and rubbed in the end of any significant interest in applying it statute of repose and secondly that if interest weighing does occur we should question it isn't that the question counsel whether india has an interest in the legislation in each state controlled by the it's the policy that comes from legislation that the drive that the idea of what interesting this happens in the legislative body i think yes but do you think i i agree with you and i think that michigan has clearly expressed this public policy to welcome such cases as this to the state of michigan and that public policy should be vindicated by this court and i think that the question therefore turns on where did the vehicle enter the stream of commerce that happened in the state of michigan and therefore it is the state of michigan's law that should apply to this question as to the application of the statute of repose what's your best case in favor of your position here as we have some cases it would do it there are i understand that and there are no michigan cases that have discussed this particularly issue the farrel case which is the case that the defense sites states as follows on page ninety four michigan is merely the forum state in situs of defendant's headquarters that's their summary of the context that michigan has therefore the i would argue that the vehicle did not end of the stream of commerce in michigan or the court would have so noted in this case however it is clear that the vehicle did enter the the stream of congress in michigan and to pick up on your point judge cook both states have product liability acts in both states find decisive significance in the question of what was the condition of the vehicle when it entered the stream of commerce when it left the control of the manufacturer that is the decisive question as to all issues of liability in a product liability case in both states why then is it not the decisive question as to whether or not a statute of repose would apply it doesn't seem to me to make sense that everything else is going to be decided on that but well we're going to make an exception over here for the statute of reports and we're going to apply that because your client happened to live in indiana and that's where the accident happened that to me is not a rational basis to apply that statute of repose this court is looking at the standard fire case that you cite yes and i think you cite it as benefiting you but point of sale wasn't wasn't the key feature that drove the decision in that case one to the point of sale it was not discussed in the case at all right but i think you're trying to use it to say point of sale was important to the court decision my correct about the cow well i would suggest there if no party advocated it it was not there i should say that the decision did not mention that fact one way or another this court upheld the use of the statute of repose despite there not being the context that with michigan right and i would therefore argue that it would seem to me court that that support your position are we just coming out on well i would say that there on the discrete question of where the vehicle enters the stream of commerce and whether or not that is a decisive issue there is no case i would say however that there are several cases from the michigan supreme court that deal with statutory construction and furthermore dealing with the  the subject matter of choice of law and i would i would point out that farrel itself one of those cases it is the case of sweeney versus sweeney in michigan supreme court case found it four  michigan two thirty four that case dealt with intra family immunity and the differences between the state of ohio and the state of michigan with respect to that subject matter michigan permitting lawsuits between family members in ohio denying same and the michigan supreme court stated that automatic after this was the first case in michigan that departed from lex locus and the appropriate loss of the post to where the the diff depicted so we'll assume defective item was manufactured or sold and in this case it's indianness so i would not concede that because what you're simply saying to me with all due respect is that while that's lex locus the licht i neither state follows that policy they haven't for a long time so i would disagree and i would suggest that  the important question how cute hadn't lapsed your client would be filing in in the home state correct i wouldn't know that i would necessarily say that because the vehicle entered the stream of commerce in michigan and you practice arden or do you practice practice in michigan but that but the client lives in indiana that at the time of the accident that is true i don't believe there's any longer the case but that was true at the i would also like to spend some time speaking with you this morning regarding the statute of said whatever period of limitation bars the claim is the period of limitation that applies then in one nine hundred seventy eight the michigan legislature substantially rewrote the statute and explicitly said that the foreign cases may be brought in the state of michigan by foreign plaintiffs but if you do that the shorter of the statute a limit statutes of limitation will apply and you must comply y again i don't think that there's been any case that has so decided and i would suggest as well that with respect to the choice of one they'll assess cases that i've seen in the michigan courts when presented with an opportunity to interpret the barring statute to the opportunity they have not said anything about it as a matter of fact the whole case specifically said we're not going to touch upon the defendant's argument regarding the borrowing statute here and there there was an opinion concurring and partly dissenting opinion in that matter in which the judge said well i would actually rule that the borrowing statute does foreclose this issue because it does not mention a statute of repose certainly the cases in the michigan supreme court are legion that the you should read the statute as written and therein lies the policy of the statute or the policy of the state of michigan michigan strictly it hears to the as chrysler group there was a name change and we provided notice of that respectfully what your honor noted is in fact the case with regard to how michigan would generally treat a case like this this court described that in the in the standard fire case noting homestead that quote michigan courts in cases like hampshire in which the plaintiff was not a resident but brought suit in michigan presumably asserting jurisdiction over the defendant on the basis of defendant's contacts with michigan have generally applied what's located to like the and that is in fact what the general rule is as the court is  federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the choice of law principle from the state where the federal court sits and in this case the review is the supreme court cases the seminal ones are almost it in sutherland as well as any michigan court of appeals cases that are on point and if you look at the court as it has closely a judge romero's opinion that really is precisely what the lower court did it described faithfully the standard as set forth in the michigan supreme court cases almost in sutherland and noted about the interest of the foreign jurisdiction now in those two cases the supreme court never reached the balancing because there was no interest in the foreign state but the michigan court of appeals has reached this issue on multiple occasions and that was noted by judge romero specifically there were three cases hampshire which was a north carolina resident sued in michigan despite the fact that the accident was in north carolina in judge griffin then of the michigan court of appeals extensively describe the analysis as set forth in  michigan the choice of well understand counsel's you know found of a method by which if it were if the courts would approve it that his client could find some really beyond this beyond in the in a statute that in the motion to dismiss i'm interested in this in that in granting the motion to dismiss it seems possible that the district court relied on matters beyond the four corners of the complaint what do you say to that counsel well respectfully in his opinion the district court does not know matters beyond the four corners of the complaint the court notes like in standard fire that the vehicle was the owner was resident of indiana and it was insured in indiana and the accident was in the indiana this court goes beyond standard fire in that in this is set forth in the complaint at paragraph twenty five this vehicle was purchased in indiana now we did discuss the fact that there are four points in indiana as set forth you would you would tell the court that judge o'meara restricted himself to the allegations of the complaint in determining in determined to dismiss i believe that is true your honor i also believe however though that this court under tool one can and should take judicial notice of the fact that there are four plants in indiana in and  plaintiff's brief thirty nine he acknowledges that chrysler quote operates for assembly plants in indiana and so and so that the facts of this case go well beyond the standard fire case in one thing that is standard fire talks about an original purchaser of the vehicle so i went back and looked at judge friedman's opinion in that case in it states that the vehicle quote was sold to the original purchaser in michigan so in the standard fire case we have the exact scenario that plaintiff's counsel says is where the question turns in the briefing plaintiffs counsel says that it's inappropriate to engage in the balancing analysis when the vehicle enters in the state of michigan and yet this court noted that there was an original purchaser in judge friedman stated just like judge america here that that was in the state of michigan incident involving him a minnesota plaintiff where the accident happened in wisconsin in the case brought in michigan and the court made it very clear that wisconsin didn't have an interest in it because there was nobody that was a party in wisconsin honor's that the same would be true here the court noted in this case that the vehicle was purchased in michigan but like in the almost dead and in standard fire it's simply not something that goes into th is that the state's interest in a statute or propose is about inducing companies to do business in the state i mean would you agree that that's pretty well the holding of the detroit metropolitan our metro airport that you want to go to the state where there is a statute or proposed because that in the end benefits the business and might draw them to your state but the real question is how does that with thank you your honor and i think that is very much on point because this gets said the only case that is different than the ones the were standard fire came out which is the main case or  any earlier case by this court and this is the issue that that case turned down was precisely what your honor is describing in maine the court applied the oem stated doctrine and in stopped basically because it said that under florida's public policy that policy was to benefit florida manufactures only and so there really is no interest in having the florida state jurisdiction apply no more balancing this is one evy compared to the facts of this case the indiana supreme court has made it very clear in direct response to your honest question about the interest in a company like chrysler with regard to the product's first use that is chris apply anywhere all the time period if that's the basis of your argument what do the facts of the case matter and it seems to me that if you're balancing interests you've got to be looking at the facts of the case and that's why i'm struggling with the idea of whether the facts of this case would impact the decisions of chrysler and i'm not you need to explain to me why it would when the car is in indiana by mere happenstance if if chrysler had built the car in indiana and wanted to stay in indiana then i could understand or have and regionally had it at the a in indiana chrysler dealer then you could say oh well you know we want chrysler to stay and they have chosen to do this and we want to induce them to continue to do business but if they just have the car there by pure happenstance what is the connection other than the generic connection that we're business friendly what is the connection in this case that would make you have that would might chrysler have an interest that that fits within indiana's policy  you and that really is the test and respectfully the decision making of chrysler i mean for chrysler didn't mean fracture this car this car was manufactured by all code assets were purchased and years later now i'm indiana law with regard to indiana residents that are injured in indiana involving foreign manufacturers and and i cited in this goes to judge cook's point if this case were in indiana the land the yamaha case would would make it very clear that in the end a statute of repose is afforded to that manufacture in that case it was the japanese manufacturer that was afforded the statute of repose so the interests respectfully of having certainty in naledge about when in fair you can in will be sued is extraordinary especially in a state where you have facts and go beyond standard fire in terms of chrysler's involvement and chrysler has four plants in indiana and  well i certainly hope not and i certainly believe under these facts that indiana as the court noted below in weighing the balancing of the interest clearly outweighs its interest with regard to michigan law i suppose depending upon the parties and other factors that there could be a result i don't believe there's a hard and fast rule in fact i think almost it teaches the opposite the only vehicle from which the plaintiff would would would have to post to this court to allow the court to do that which would be to overrule the standard fire case under these facts is the barring statute which is this you unique discussion where a statute that does not mention the statute of repose has been considered by every michigan court and this court with regard to the any analysis visa v the choice of law that this court should should somehow write into that statute that the statute of repose is somehow affirmatively and decidedly applicable  not applicable in michigan and i respectfully say that the court it is clear ought not to do that the silence should not be read in that interpretation it's just like the silence about where the vehicle entered into the stream of commerce it doesn't extended one there was a discussion about almost dead presented in that case the court rejected that instead and saving that quote michigan's barring statute is specifically designed to resolve questions regarding the political statutes of limitations and there's nothing to do with with that if you go back into the history and that's what this is premised on this argument the smith case lays out the history of the borrowing statute in the changes to the changes were done to allow a special martin during his argument counsel said in fairness it is fairness that allows the application of the statue that were posed to chrysler because as judge strange said there was a fortuity that the accident happened in the end that chrysler had nothing to do with they are getting a windfall here and they say that fair i would suggest that and i cite again from the sweeney versus sweeney case which is the first case in michigan that the parted from lex locus the court and it's you find the quote on page eighty without the statue riposte you'd still have a somewhat of an uphill battle i do you i don't think so at all because the issue isn't the condition of the vehicle in terms of wear and tear the problem with this vehicle is the gas tank hangs down significantly below the rear bumper it's sitting there like a big red apple saying come get me when you get hit in the rear particularly by a low slung vehicle there's nothing protecting the tank but that was true in your liability you think that the liability is strong if you were able to get yes i do heard i get that but but this is we have to get past him for your client to prevail your client has to pursed bring the claim in the state where i mean she's brought a claim where there is no statute oppose that forecloses her completely this would be a discovery rule matter right absolutely no not really not a discovery will matter at all that we we filed this lawsuit within the indiana statute of limitations you did ok so there's absolutely no discovery roll whatsoever but to get back to sweeney and now look how you respond to the fact well well let's say it's just standard and happen you get where you need to go if the the concept that it's already has already been addressed that the car in the str commerce in michigan and that's been held not to be good enough well i don't find any analysis to that effect in standard fire at all three things no there's no discrete there's no discussion of it whatsoever sale and deliberate occurred in michigan in that standard buyer case i certainly trust brother counsel statement to the court if he went back and found it then he went back and found it i'm not quarrelling where it looked at it yet ok so but assuming that same is true in this case michigan has a product liability statute and acted in one nine hundred ninety five that gave all whole bunch of industry friendly goodies caps on damages absolute liability  drug cases a very high standard of high burden and so forth but no statute they were posing you know those manufacturers are in lansing asking for a statute of repose and they didn't get it but they're asking you for thank you for your argument telling you we will consider your case carefully will issue an opinion in due course thank you