Opinion ID: 3169598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington's conflict of laws analysis

Text: We hold that Washington substantive law applies in this case because there is no actual conflict of law. Because Washington substantive law applies, Washington's statute of limitations also applies. When a party raises a conflict of law issue in a personal injury case, we apply the following analytical framework to determine which law applies: (1) identify an actual conflict of substantive law; (2) if 4 Woodward (Claire) v. Taylor (Ava A.) et al. No. 91270-0 there is an actual conflict of substantive law, apply the most significant relationship test to determine which state's substantive law applies to the case, or, if there is no actual conflict, apply the presumptive law of the forum; (3) then, if applicable, apply the chosen substantive law's statute of limitations according to RCW 4.18.020. E.g., Rice, 124 Wn.2d at 210-13. Under the first step, the court must identify an actual conflict of law. FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 180 Wn.2d at 967. An actual conflict of law exists where the result of an issue is different under the laws of the interested states. Seizer v. Sessions, 132 Wn.2d 642, 648, 940 P.2d 261 (1997). We do not consider differences between two states' statutes of limitations in making a choice of applicable law. Rice, 124 Wn.2d at 210. If there is no actual conflict, the local law of the forum applies and the court does not reach the most significant relationship test. Seizer, 132 Wn.2d at 648-49. In tort, if there is an actual conflict of law, the court applies the two-part most significant relationship test to determine which state's substantive law to apply to the claim. 2 This two-part most significant relationship test is embodied in Restatement section 6 and sections 145-46. See Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 171 Wn.2d 726,735 n.6, 254 P.3d 818 (2011); Southwellv. Widing Transp., Inc., 101 Wn.2d 200, 204, 676 P.2d 477 (1984); see also RESTATEMENT ch. 7, topic 1, intra. note. For the first part of the most significant relationship test, the court evaluates the contacts each interested jurisdiction has with the parties and the occurrence 2Washington rejects the lex loci delicti conflict of law approach to tort cases. Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wn.2d 577, 580, 583, 555 P.2d 997 (1976). 5 Woodward (Claire) v. Taylor (Ava A.) et al. No. 91270-0 under the factors of Restatement section 145 plus any more specific section of the Restatement that is relevant to the cause of action. 3 See Williams, 171 Wn.2d at 735 n.6; Southwell, 101 Wn.2d at 204. The approach is not merely to count contacts, - but rather to consider which contacts are most significant and to determine where these contacts are found. Southwell, 101 Wn.2d at 204. For the second part of the most significant relationship test, the court must then evaluate the interests and policies of the potentially concerned jurisdictions by applying the factors set forth in Restatement section 6. See id. (The extent of the interest of each potentially interested state should be determined on the basis, among other things, of the purpose sought to be achieved by their relevant local law rules and the particular issue involved.). Finally, after determining which state's substantive law applies, the court is to determine the appropriate statute of limitations by following the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act, chapter 4.18 RCW. This act states: (1) Except as provided by RCW 4.18.040, if a claim is substantively based: (a) Upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or (b) Upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states, chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state, applies. (2) The limitation period of this state applies to all other claims. RCW 4.18.020. A difference between two states' statutes of limitations may not be the basis for finding an actual conflict of law. Rice, 124 Wn.2d at 210. Rather, a court 3For example, the cause of action in this case is a personal injury tort; therefore, a court employing the most significant relationship test must consider both Restatement section 145 and section 146. 6 Woodward (Claire) v. Taylor (Ava A.) et al. No. 91270-0 determines the applicable statute of limitations only after first finding an actual conflict of law and then determining the applicable substantive law under the most significant relationship test. /d.