Opinion ID: 2581156
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hawai`i Law Applies To the Instant Case.

Text: This court discussed its choice of law jurisprudence in Mikelson, which was decided after the appellate briefs in the instant appeal were filed. Therein this court observed the following: This court has moved away from the traditional and rigid conflict-of-laws rules in favor of the modern trend towards a more flexible approach looking to the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter. This flexible approach places primary emphasis on deciding which state would have the strongest interest in seeing its laws applied to the particular case. Hence, this court has said that the interests of the states and applicable public policy reasons should determine whether Hawai`i law or another state's law should apply. The preferred analysis . . . would be an assessment of the interests and policy factors involved with a purpose of arriving at a desirable result in each situation. Mikelson, 107 Hawai`i at 198, 111 P.3d at 607 (citations, brackets, and some quotation marks omitted). In light of this court's discussion in Mikelson, Fireman's Fund's reliance on P.W. Stephens Contractors, Inc. v. Mid American Indem. Ins. Co., 805 F.Supp. 854 (D.Haw. 1992), Airgo, Inc. v. Horizon Cargo Transp., 66 Haw. 590, 670 P.2d 1277, 1281 (1983), and California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Bell, 6 Haw.App. 597, 735 P.2d 499 (1987), for the proposition that Hawai`i courts have consistently applied the factors set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (2001) [10] when confronted with a conflict between the law of Hawaii and that of another state is not persuasive. First, Fireman's Fund's reading of P.W. Stephens is inaccurate because the federal court clearly observed that this court look[ed] to but reject[ed] the [Restatement (Second)] approach in Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981). P.W. Stephens, 805 F.Supp. at 856. Second, Fireman's Fund's reading of Bell is also inaccurate inasmuch as the ICA in Bell did not rely on any provision of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws in making its choice of law decision. See Mikelson, 107 Hawai`i at 201, 111 P.3d at 610 (While the [ICA] made reference to the Restatement in [Bell], the ICA decided the underlying choice of law issue utilizing Professor Leflar's `choice-influencing considerations' approach referred to in Peters.); Bell, 6 Haw.App. at 606, 735 P.2d at 505 (applying Professor Leflar's `choice-influencing considerations' approach). Finally, the parties in Airgo expressly agreed in both service agreements that any disputes were to be resolved under Texas law. Id. at 595, 670 P.2d at 1281 (emphasis added). In Airgo, this court was guided by the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187(1) (1971) [11] for the proposition that a choice of law provision provided in a contract between the parties will generally be upheld [w]hen . . . the chosen law has some nexus with the parties or the contract[.] Airgo, 66 Haw. at 595, 670 P.2d at 1281. However, because none of the insurance policies in the instant case contain a choice of law provision, Airgo is distinguishable. [12] In applying the approach articulated by this court in Mikelson, we hold that Hawai`i has a greater interest in applying its own law to the instant case for the following reasons. First, the environmental pollution that engendered the instant case occurred on land located in Hawai`i. Second, the Hawai`i State Department of Health is overseeing the Kunia plantation site remediation, having (1) entered into a separate memorandum agreement with the EPA, and (2) concurred in the EPA/Del Monte Fresh consent order such that it will not pursue its own available remedies against Del Monte Fresh so long as it continues with its site remediation. Finally, the State of Hawai`i has expressed an interest in favor of protecting its environment for the public's welfare. HRS § 341-1 (1993) provides, in pertinent part: The legislature finds that the quality of the environment is as important to the welfare of the people of Hawaii as is the economy of the State. The legislature further finds that the determination of an optimum balance between economic development and environmental quality deserves the most thoughtful consideration, and that the maintenance of the optimum quality of the environment deserves the most intensive care. (Emphases added.) In light of the above interests, we hold that Hawai`i law applies to the instant case.