Opinion ID: 852926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Role of Policy

Text: Although Indiana and the District of Colombia consider the same basic contacts when analyzing a conflict-of-law problem, we approach the problem from different perspectives. D.C. implements a hybrid of the `governmental interest' and Restatement (Second) methodologies that identifies the governmental policies underlying the applicable laws and determines which state's policy would be most advanced by having its laws applied to the facts of the case. Simon, 341 F.3d at 200 (citing Raflo v. United States, 157 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C.2001)). Indiana does not require that courts undertake the difficult and ultimately speculative task of identifying the policies underlying the laws of multiple states and weighing the potential advancement of each in the context of the case. [4] Indiana courts, assuming they reach the second step of the Hubbard analysis, simply look at the contacts that exist between the action and the relevant states and determine which state has the most significant relationship with the action. [5] This difference in approach may or may not lead to the selection of different states in a given case. We need not determine whether the difference is a false conflict in this case, however, because the difference between the jurisdictions' stances on dépeçage is sufficient to create a true conflict between the laws of Indiana and D.C.