Opinion ID: 3001938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Place of negotiation of contract

Text: Normally, the place of a contract’s negotiation is a “significant contact.” Restatement (Second) of Conflicts § 188 cmt. e. The state where contract negotiations occur has an interest in the legality of the negotiations themselves, as well as the ultimate agreement. See id. However, “[t]his contact is of less importance when there is no one single place of negotiation and agreement, as for example, when the parties do not meet but rather conduct their negotiations from separate states by mail or telephone.” Id. The testimony of ACS’s office manager confirms that ACS negotiated for the insurance policies on behalf of Nos. 06-4019 & 07-1400 13 the small corporations. Those negotiations took place by phone, between an ACS employee in Indiana, and John Damiani, at Sun Insurance in New Jersey. In turn, Damiani worked with Jimcor, the Pennsylvania Insurance agency—the communications between Damiani and Jimcor seemed to have occurred by fax and e-mail. In Coachmen, the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that because some of the negotiations were done by mail, fax, or phone between individuals in different states, “there [was] not a single place of negotiation.” Id. The court could not say the place of negotiation was conclusive, and found the factor indeterminate. Id. Likewise, we cannot identify a particular place of negotiation because the evidence shows that parts of the negotiations took place in Indiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Notably, none of the negotiations took place in Illinois.