Opinion ID: 3015893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pennsylvania Choice-of-Law

Text: To determine which state’s substantive law governs, we must refer to the choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction in which the District Court sits, here Pennsylvania. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); Melville v. American Home Assur. Co., 584 F.2d 1306, 1308 (3d Cir. 1978). Under Pennsylvania law, we begin with an “interest analysis” of the policies of all interested states and then—based on the result of that analysis—characterize the case as a true conflict, false conflict, or unprovided-for case. LeJeune v. Bliss-Salem, Inc., 85 F.3d 1069, 1071 (3d Cir. 1996); Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170, 187 & n.15 (3d Cir. 1991). A true conflict exists “when the governmental interests of [multiple] jurisdictions would be impaired if their law were not applied.” Lacey, 932 F.2d at 187 n.15. If a case presents a true conflict, Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules “call for the application of the law of the state having the most significant contacts or relationships with the particular issue.” In re Estate 5 of Agostini, 457 A.2d 861, 871 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983). As explained in the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include (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. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971). “A false conflict exists if only one jurisdiction's governmental interests would be impaired by the application of the other jurisdiction’s law.” Lacey, 932 F.2d at 187. If there is a false conflict, we must apply the law of the only interested jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kuchinic v. McCrory, 222 A.2d 897, 899–900 (Pa. 1966); Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 203 A.2d 796, 807 (Pa. 1964). Finally, an unprovided-for case arises when no jurisdiction's interests would be impaired if its laws were not applied. Lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the 6 wrong—here Pennsylvania) continues to govern unprovided-for cases. See, e.g., Miller v. Gay, 470 A.2d 1353, 1355–56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983). With this background, we turn to the competing state laws we consider applying.