Opinion ID: 821085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Choice of Law Provision

Text: Finally, Black argues that the district court erred in applying the exclusive remedy provision under Kentucky statutory law, because the contract carriage agreement clearly states, “[t]his agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Delaware, without giving effect to the conflict of law rules thereof.” PID# 114. Black argues that the district court should have applied Delaware law to the question whether an employer/employee relationship existed between Black and Georgia-Pacific/Dixie, and that under Delaware law, which has no counterpart to § 342.610, Black would be able to pursue tort claims against Dixie and Georgia-Pacific. -13- No. 10-5498 Black v. Dixie Consumer Products LLC, et al. Black’s choice-of-law argument was raised for the first time in his Rule 59(e) motion to vacate the summary judgment order. It is well settled that Rule 59(e) motions are not appropriate to “raise arguments which could, and should, have been raised before judgment issued. Thus, the district court was not obliged to consider this argument and, because it did not, we have no ruling to review. Any further argument on this issue must take place on remand.