Opinion ID: 2322620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Most Significant Relationship

Text: We review the Superior Court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. [3] This case presents a choice of law question. When conducting a choice of law analysis, Delaware courts follow the most significant relationship test in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (the Restatement). [4] Section 145(1) of the Restatement provides that the law of the state that has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in section 6 is the governing law. [5] Section 6(2) provides that the following seven factors are relevant to the choice of law inquiry: (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. [6] Section 145(2) also instructs that when applying the section 6 factors, courts should take into account the following four contacts: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. [7] The appellants contend that North Carolina law, and not Delaware law, applies to Thompson's claim. They argue that using the four contacts in the Restatement section 145(2), North Carolina has the most significant relationship because the injury occurred in North Carolina, the conduct occurred in North Carolina, Thompson and Sinnott were college students in North Carolina and were in the vehicle because of the contact in North Carolina, and the only relationship between the parties developed in North Carolina. Thompson argues that Delaware has the predominant interest in regulating the behavior that gave rise to the conduct that led to his injuries. He asserts that the seven factors in the Restatement section 6(2) most significant relationship test are based on the quality of the contacts with the parties and not the quantity. Thompson further contends that Delaware's contacts are superior to North Carolina's because Sinnott and Pepper are both Delaware residents, Sinnott is a licensed driver in the state of Delaware, and the vehicle that Sinnott was driving was registered and insured in Delaware. In holding that the Delaware law of comparative negligence applies to Thompson's claims, the Superior Court found Conlin v. Hutcheon [8] to be persuasive authority for that conclusion. [9] In Conlin, the plaintiff, an Illinois resident, filed suit in Colorado against the defendant, a Colorado resident, for injuries sustained in a one-car accident that occurred in Nebraska. [10] Both parties were students, residing temporarily in Nebraska, and the car that the defendant was driving was registered and insured in Iowa. [11] The court in Conlin reasoned that the domicile and residence of the parties and the place where the relationship is centered constituted the most significant contacts. [12] The court also noted that Colorado had significant contacts because the claim was filed in Colorado and the defendant was served in Colorado. [13] Given these considerations, the court in Conlin determined that Colorado law applied to the claim. Other jurisdictions have held similarly and determined that the place where the injury occurred is an inferior contact in comparison to the other contacts listed in section 145(2) when applying the Restatement section 6(2) principles. [14] In Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake , we adopted the most significant relationship test and concluded that Delaware law applied to plaintiff's claims. [15] In that case, plaintiff brought suit to recover for an accident that occurred in Quebec, Canada. At issue in Lake was a choice of law question between applying Delaware law or Quebec law on the amount of damages a Delaware resident could recover from a Delaware insurance carrier. Although the injury occurred in Quebec, we explained: [t]here is no compelling issue of Quebec public policy here. The parties are not residents of Quebec. The truck Lake was driving when the accident occurred was not registered in Quebec. The only connection with Quebec is that the accident occurred there. In comparison, Delaware clearly has the most significant relationship to the issues presented. Lake is a resident of Delaware. Travelers obviously conducts substantial business here. The uninsured motorist coverage provision of Lake's policy arose out of Delaware law and involves issues of vital importance to all Delaware citizens. [16] In our recent decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Patterson , [17] we again declined to apply the law of the state where the injury occurred under section 146, in light of the contacts listed in section 145(2), as applied to the policy principles in section 6(2).