Opinion ID: 1854829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Olmstead provides the analytical framework for deciding this case. That is, we will apply Michigan law unless a rational reason to do otherwise exists. In determining whether a rational reason to displace Michigan law exists, we undertake a two-step analysis. First, we must determine if any foreign state has an interest in having its law applied. If no state has such an interest, the presumption that Michigan law will apply cannot be overcome. If a foreign state does have an interest in having its law applied, we must then determine if Michigan's interests mandate that Michigan law be applied, despite the foreign interests. Id. at 24, 29-30, 400 N.W.2d 292. Ohio and Ontario are the only two foreign jurisdictions that potentially have an interest in having their law applied in this case. Ohio, where the plaintiffs reside, has a two-year statute of limitations for these types of actions. [21] However, a court could not apply Ohio law to this case without violating the defendants' due process rights. As Justice Brennan stated in Allstate Ins. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 313, 101 S.Ct. 633, 640, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981), in order for a court to choose a state's law, [the] State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair. [22] In this case, the only contact that Ohio has with this litigation is that plaintiffs are Ohio residents. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the plaintiff's residence, with nothing more, is insufficient to support the choice of a state's law. Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 408, 50 S.Ct. 338, 341-342, 74 L.Ed. 926 (1930); see also John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yates, 299 U.S. 178, 57 S.Ct. 129, 81 L.Ed. 106 (1936). Because Ohio does not have an interest in seeing the court apply its law, Ontario is the only remaining candidate. Ontario, like Ohio, has a two-year statute of limitations. [23] Defendants claim that because Ontario law would benefit the Ontario defendants by barring the claim, Ontario has an interest in having its statute of limitations applied. Certainly, one purpose of a statute of limitations is to protect defendants from stale claims. We do not agree, however, that Ontario has an interest in protecting the defendants from stale claims in this situation. In fact, according to Canadian and Ontario law, Ontario has an interest in having Michigan's statute of limitations applied in this case. In the companion cases of Tolofson v. Jensen and Lucas v. Gagnon, 120 DLR4th 289 (1994), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the lex loci delicti rule and held that Canadian courts must apply the substantive law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred. [24] The court also stated that statutes of limitation are substantive, not procedural, for choice of law purposes. Tolofson, supra Thus, under Tolofson, Canadian courts must apply the statute of limitations of the jurisdiction in which the tort occurred. Tolofson involves residents of British Columbia who were injured in an automobile accident in Saskatchewan, and thus does not present an international choice of law problem. Justice La Forest, speaking for the court, noted that an exception to the lex loci delicti rule may exist in international tort litigation if application of the law of a foreign country could give rise to [an] injustice. Id. at 308. Justice La Forest continued, however, to state that he could only imagine few cases where this would be necessary. Id. We seriously doubt that an Ontario court would find that the application of Michigan's three-year statute of limitations in this case would give rise to injustice. Certainly, no Ontario court has expressed qualms about applying American law. In Ostronski v. Global Upholstery Co, 1995 Ont C J LEXIS 4668, for example, the Ontario Court of Justice applied Pennsylvania's statute of limitations to a tort suit commenced in Ontario. [25] Ontario's courts have even applied American law when that law is detrimental to Canadian litigants. See In re Hanlan, 1996 Ont C A Lexis 754, rev'g Hanlan v. Sernesky, 1996 Ont C J LEXIS 2538. Thus, had plaintiffs filed this suit in Ontario, Ontario's courts would have applied Michigan's three-year statute of limitations. [26] Because even Ontario courts would not allow the defendants to escape this claim through application of Ontario law, we do not see how Ontario can have an interest in having Michigan courts apply Ontario law. Therefore, no foreign state has an interest in having its law applied to this case. The lex fori presumption is not overcome, and we need not evaluate Michigan's interests. Olmstead at 30, 400 N.W.2d 292. Michigan's three-year statute of limitations will apply to this case.