Opinion ID: 1387072
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Choice of Law: Washington or Alaska?

Text: Before determining the legal effect of the express indemnity provision at issue here, it is necessary to resolve a choice of law question. In summarizing the arguments below, the superior court stated: The parties dispute whether Washington law or Alaska law governs the validity of the express indemnity clause. Western ... argues that Washington law applies because that is the place of negotiating, contracting, and performance of the sales contract containing the disputed clause. ARCO argues that the issue is whether Western ... is entitled to implied indemnity under Alaska's common law, which would be analyzed under Alaska law. When choice of law issues arise, we commonly refer to the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts for guidance. [13] In this instance, application of Restatement principles leads to the conclusion that Washington law controls. [14] As the Restatement directs, since ARCO's purchase order confirmation form does not contain a choice of law provision, section 188 of the Restatement governs. It instructs that we look to the place of contracting, negotiation, and performance of the contract, all of which took place in Washington. Consequently, Washington law governs disposition of this issue.