Legal Document

449 U.S. 302 101 Supreme Court Reporter 633 66 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 521 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,v.Lavina HAGUE, Personal Representative of Hague's Estate. Number 79-938. Argued Oct. 6, 1980. Decided Jan. 13, 1981. Rehearing Denied March 2, See 450 971, 1494. Syllabus Respondent's husband died injuries suffered when a motorcycle on which he was passenger struck by an automobile. The accident occurred in Wisconsin near the Minnesota border. operators both vehicles were residents, as decedent, who, however, had been employed and commuted daily to work from Wisconsin. Neither vehicle operator carried valid insurance, but decedent held policy issued petitioner covering three automobiles owned him containing uninsured motorist clause insuring against loss incurred accidents with motorists, limiting such coverage $15,000 for each After accident, respondent moved became resident Minnesota, subsequently appointed that State personal representative her husband's estate. She then brought action court seeking declaration under law late could be "stacked" provide total $45,000. Petitioner defended ground whether coverages stacked should determined law, since insurance delivered Wisconsin, there, all persons involved residents at time accident. trial court, interpreting disallow stacking, concluded Minnesota's choice-of-law rules required application permitting granted summary judgment respondent. affirmed. Held : is Pp. 307-320; 322-331. Minn., 289 North Western Reporter, 2nd 43, Justice BRENNAN, joined WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, has significant aggregation contacts parties occurrence, creating state interests, its neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair, and, accordingly, choice does not violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment or Full Faith Credit Clause. 307-320. (a) member force. employment police power responsibilities towards nonresident employees are analogous those it use services amenities may call upon facilities appropriate circumstances. Also, State's interest commuting employees, respondent's reflects concern safety well-being force concomitant effect employers. That killed while dictate different result, vindication rights estate employee important concern. Nor decedent's residence constitutionally mandate exclusion forum law. Employment status sufficiently less than residence, combined commute across lines other present, prohibit result this case constitutional grounds. 313-317. (b) times present doing business Minnesota. By virtue presence, can hardly claim unfamiliarity laws host jurisdiction surprise courts might apply litigation company involved. Moreover, presence gave regulating company's obligations insofar they affected court-appointed (respondent) longstanding (respondent's decedent). 317-318. (c) Respondent prior institution instant litigation. Such subsequent appointment constitute contact gives recovery. 318-319. STEVENS concluded: 1. did require State, contract-interpretation question presented. Although courts' decision unsound matter conflicts no threat Wisconsin's sovereignty ensued allowing substantive meaning contract another State. 322-326. 2. prevent applying own "stacking" rule itself these litigants raised any serious fairness. due process because frustrated contracting parties' reasonable expectations. consistent unfairness either litigant, plaintiff employee. 326-331. Mark M. Nolan, St. Paul, petitioner. Andreas Federal KF105 F3 Lowenfeld, New York City, BRENNAN announced opinion, BLACKMUN joined. 1 This certiorari determine Amendment1 Article IV, § 1,2 Constitution bars Court's govern provision decedent. 444 1070, 100 1012, 62 750 (1980). 2 * husband, Ralph Hague, behind Pierce County, Wis., immediately border Red Wing, Minn. resided Hager one one-half miles Wing. Mr. Hague Wing 15 years preceding his death place employment. 3 automobile insurance. However, Allstate Insurance motorists. limited automobile.3 4 initiation lawsuit, Subsequently, she married established new Savage, At approximately same time, Registrar Probate deceased Following appointment, District 5 disagreed. Interpreting stacking. refused "inimical public Minnesota" respondent.4 6 Court, sitting en banc, affirmed Court.5 also stacking,6 applied after analyzing relevant interests within analytical framework developed Professor Leflar.7 Leflar, Choice-Influencing Considerations Conflicts Law, 41 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 267 (1966). therefore, examined conflict-of-laws issue terms (1) predictability (2) maintenance interstate order, (3) simplification judicial task, (4) advancement forum's governmental (5) better stating be, "in themselves, sufficient [Minnesota] law,"8 49 (1978), first four factors, fifth factor-application law-favored selection emphasized majority allow stacking legal decisions "are fairly recent well considered light current uses automobiles." Ibid. In addition, found superior "because requires cost motorists spread more broadly through premiums rule." Finally, rehearing banc,9 buttressed initial opinion indicating "that contracts motor class themselves" "knows movable item will driven state." N.W.2d, 50 (1979). From premise "not so unreasonable process." II 7 It say analysis suggested Leflar preferred we would make if Court. Our sole function exceeded federal limitations. Implicit inquiry recognition, long accepted set facts giving rise particular justify, terms, jurisdiction. See, e. g. Watson versus Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 66, 72-73, 75 166, 169-170, 99 L.Ed. 74 (1954); n.11, infra. generally Clay Sun Office, Ltd., 377 179, 181-182, 84 1197, 1198, 12 229 (1964) (hereinafter cited ). As have select among several jurisdictions having some controversy. 8 deciding questions, Clause,10 traditionally whose applied, occurrence transaction II, supra, 183, S.Ct., 1199. order ensure seeAlaska Packers Assn. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 294 532, 542, 55 518, 521, 79 1044 (1935), invalidated contacts, transaction.11 9 Two instructive examples invalidation Home Dick, 281 397, 338, 926 (1930), John Hancock Mutual Life Yates, 299 178, 57 129, 81 106 (1936). cases, rested exclusively nonsignificant contact. 10 Dick interpretation Mexico, Mexican insurer, citizen, risk. assigned who domiciled Mexico "physically acting Mexico," U.S., 408, 341, although remained nominal, permanent Texas. restricted losses occurring certain waters indeed waters. suit Texas reinsurer. insurer reinsurer connection Texas.12 void contract's limitation-of-actions violated process.13 11 relationship similarly attenuated Yates. There, Massachusetts corporation, life resident. for, issued, where insured spouse resided. York, Georgia Georgia. Under jury permitted take into account oral modifications contained material misrepresentations. misrepresentations evaluated solely basis written application. reversed finding unconstitutional. Yates stand proposition only insignificant transaction, unconstitutional.14 nominal standing alone—was inadequate; postoccurrence change State—standing insufficient justify extreme governs case. For contrast decisions, here obviously significant. Thus, like Alaska Packers, Cardillo Liberty Co., 330 469, 67 801, 91 1028 (1947), II—cases sustained based occurrence. 13 upheld California's Workmen's Compensation Act, most worker California execution California. worker, alien hired seasonal salmon canning factory Alaska. part contract, employer, California, agreed transport return completed. Even though contracted bound Law injured Alaska, sought award Act. "so amount denial process," "[w]ithout remedy [he] remediless," ibid., become charge, ibid.15 14 Columbia resident, employer Virginia, crash Virginia course home work. District's satisfy requirements, employee's District, between workplace, "engaged electrical construction surrounding areas." Id., 471, 803.16 Similarly, constitutionality Illinois Subsequently Florida property Florida. Relying explicitly nationwide implicitly plaintiff's Florida, court's 16 lesson Cardillo, adequate sustain law,17 selected permissible manner, must unfair. Application principle persuades us offend Constitution. III 17 aggregate, permit coverages. 18 First, our purposes very contact, force, enterprise death. While implicate substantial status, nevertheless important. analogous, somewhat profound, residents. 19 475-476, 805-806 (daily workplace Virginia), presumably covered during commute.18 20 result. To hold reason too narrow view An need occur connected occurrence.19 fatal contact.20 If missed few weeks palpable made whole evident. affects still acutely, even surely level protection extends it, directly indirectly. Vindication employee, 21 not—as seems argue—constitutionally law.21 If, case, motorist, executed registered drive, certainly insurer's law.22 supra; (1935); n.5, 341. see Carroll Lanza, 349 804, 1183 (1955); 22 Second, Minnesota.23 "Particularly licensed do [the forum], known sued forum] feel [forum] law."24 Office 363 207, 221, 80 1222, 1230, 1170 (1960) (Black, J., dissenting).25 Allstate's representative—respondent—and force—Mr. Hague. Hoopeston Canning Cullen, 318 313, 316, 63 602, 604, 87 777 (1943). 23 Third, stipulated reveal settled town worked.26 marrying operated service station Bloomington, Her move Savage "almost concurrently," 45, case.27 There suggestion Mrs. anticipation purpose climate especially hospitable claim.28 facts, sparse are, negate inference. 24 (1936), confer choose irrelevant. Here, course, bona fide And County Goodhue, recovery, below identified full compensation "resident victims" keep them "off welfare rolls" able "to meet financial obligations." 49. 25 sum, aggregation29 Accordingly, 26 Affirmed. 27 STEWART took consideration 28 STEVENS, concurring judgment. 29 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions unusual case—in precedent language provides sure guidance—two separate questions answered. Clause1 law? Clause2 implicates ensuring respect Wisconsin; second litigants' fair adjudication their rights.3 30 realize questions4 scholarly criticism decisions5 treated two inquiries indistinguishable.6 Nevertheless, am persuaded provisions protect proper each. 31 designed transform independent sovereignties single, unified Nation. Thomas Washington Gas Light 448 261, 271-272, 2647, 2655-2656, 65 757 (1980) (plurality opinion); Milwaukee E. White 296 268, 276-277, 56 229, 233-234, 220 (1935).7 implements design directing multistate aspects implications, legitimate avoid infringement sovereignty. not, rigidly foreign whenever Nevada Hall, 440 410, 424, 1182, 1190, 59 416 (1979); 546-548, 523-524, Pacific 306 493, 501-502, 629, 632-633, 83 940 (1939).8 On contrary, fact sovereign right, cases attach paramount importance interests.9 necessarily concerns embodied Rather my invalidate unless threatens national unity unjustifiably infringing State.10 32 think plainly normal Both events plaintiff, believe ensues presented 33 merits contract. itself, anything else record, express understanding what cars "stacked." Since provided States, obvious give Therefore, formed reliance interpreted accordance implicated case.11 34 failed establish refusal poses direct12 indirect sovereignty.13 absence threat, find unnecessary evaluate reach conclusion 35 assumed totally unfair litigant. judge's ever described wholly irrational. judges familiar difficult consuming discover correctly State.14 efficient administration justice therefore sufficient, judgment, presumption validity dispute over 36 operation system clearly litigants. Arguably, litigant demonstrate variety ways. Concern about fairness arise favored nonresidents, represented dramatic departure obtains American jurisdictions, face applied.15 37 otherwise acceptable if, engaging activity subject litigation, reasonably anticipated actions later judged A frustrates justifiable expectations desire central review Clause.16 38 litigants, raises plurality observes, "[s]tacking issued." Ante, n. 22.17 economics contractual policyholder paid automobiles, including premium coverage.18 said parties. 39 Contracting can, explicit providing shall interpretation,19 rule, instance "stacking," apply.20 provisions, nonetheless example, liability infer expected governed 40 indication available. throughout States; thus, contracting, claims arising policy.22 aware courts; "stacking." Nothing record inference drawn. frustrate parties, fundamental requiring attention Court.23 fairness, me factors relied plurality—the postaccident employment—are irrelevant possibly tend undermine plurality's conclusion. When concern, unanticipated post-accident purposes. cannot ruling favor nonresident. regularly drove parties,24 adds nothing analysis. now formerly 42 regard there little support decision, concur impose whatever themselves adopted.25 authority exercised area violation reasons stated above, 43 POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 44 My disagreement narrow. accept reservations Part sets forth basic principles guide reviewing modest check mandated believe, adequately analyzes policies serve. consequence, appear trivial 45 least (1955), recognized Clauses satisfied significance asserted oversight enduring emerge cases. 46 "slight casual" 182, (1964). touchstone expectation Weintraub, Limitations Choice Iowa L.Rev. 449, 445-457 (1959) (Weintraub). Clay, sold " 'with knowledge anywhere world saw fit without losing insurance.' quoting dissenting). Florida's recovery policy. "must there." (1954).1 47 outcome before it. (1939). addresses accommodation various States. circumstances, statutory 423, 1189, sure, "violation policy." 422, 1189. Nonetheless, further controversy, scope lawmaking 48 "reach out beyond limits imposed coequal sovereigns system." World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation Woodson, 286, 292, 559, 564, 490 (addressing limitations state-court jurisdiction). supra: "[T]he faith credit substitute statute, applicable conflicting statute 502, (emphasis added). created effects toward directed. assess sufficiency form link short, examination "the instance." Currie, Law: Governmental Interests Judicial Function, baron Selected Essays Conflict Laws 188, 189 (1963) (Currie). does, satisfied. Mut. illustrates principle. beneficiary. York; beneficiary recover insured, policy, materially false statements rendered contrary policy's jury. Clause, "[i]n accrual right . done, apply." 131. words, liability. Georgia's nonexistent.2 (1930). summary, assessed policies.3 pattern satisfies protects being unfairly surprised applies understood 51 Recognition complexity restraint. Applying "persons events" agree frustrated. risk geographically limited. 1198. close proximity many led probability materialize precedents, plain borders. ante, 318, 24. fact, controlling cause accrues pertinent perspective. Weintraub 445; n.1, supra. 52 doubtful furthers interest. attempts substance tenuous Upon examination, furthering 53 plaintiff-beneficiary question. today insists itself" 319. What held, "there 131, Any possible ambiguity dispelled squarely Dick's "without significance." 54 sound. moving forum, invitation shopping irresistible. defendant's frustrated, turn postaccrual circumstance. proposes rule; unrelated issues finds practices insurer. But argument proves much. conduct property, persons, State.4 319, 606, recognizes flaw bolster local combining deemed significant: worked merely restates emphasizes particularly State.5 furtherance policies. g., (1939) (forum compensating workers employment-related State); 549, 524, (1935) State). insured's nature related immediate way status. understandably vague explaining how trebling benefits relating wish die accidents, compensation, increased relation power. 5, taken separately aggregate indicate interest.6 focuses physical vel non, pays scant why precedents policy-related dissent. "shall deprive person life, liberty, law.. ." 1, provides: "Full given Acts, Records, Proceedings every Congress general prescribe Manner proved, Effect thereof." additional coverage. App. Contract Pet. Certiorari A-29. (1978). presents "false conflict." rejected contention followed discussion conflict, chose constitutional. previously adopted conceptual model Milkovich Saari, 295 155, 203 408 (1973). apparently referring limitation decision. similar approach instance, resulting applied. exacting standard evaluating 549-550, 524-525, (interest rejected), abandoned weighing-of-interests requirement. (1959). Different considerations accorded acts, records, proceedings outside area, sister judgments. Prior advent "dominant mode modern theory," Silberman, Shaffer Heitner End Era, 33, 80, n.259 (1978); cf. Richards 369 11-13, nn.26-27, 82 585, 591-593, 492 (1962) (discussing trend courts), prevailing methodology focused event occurred. Restatement (1934). characterized controlled determination capacity, fraud, consideration, duty, performance, like. 332; Beale, Governs Validity Contract, Harv.L.Rev. 260, 270-271 (1910). tort context, wrong usually traditional Restatement, 378; 11-12, 591-592. Hartford Indemnity Delta Pine Land 292 143, 634, 78 1178 (1934), perhaps, best explained example period. down Mississippi voided fidelity bond Tennessee Connecticut Delta, Mississippi. misapplication funds "by 'in position, anywhere. .' 145, 634. discovered defalcations Mississippi-based lawsuit commenced relevance today. implied choice—of—law which, intents purposes, isolated event—the writing Tennessee—controlling significance, (there Mississippi) unexpected. Martin, Jurisdiction Mich.L.Rev. 872, 874, n.11 obtain quasi-in-rem garnishing reinsurance obligation never transacted Texas, "was publication, statute; attorneys court; filed behalf answer denied liability." 402, 339. entertain Rush Savchuk, 320, 571, 516 (1980); Heitner, 433 186, 97 2569, 683 (1977); 62-65. noted "which properly lay regulations imposed." Supra, n.5; 71, 169, (1954). generally, n.10, 455-457. Alaska's, 547-548, injury performing there. balanced issue, balancing longer required. 1190; precise Commission "had claim." 472-473, 804. issue. challenged grounds numerous decisions. supra (upholding official driving car engaged California); 394 (1955) Arkansas' Arkansas Missouri job removed hospital); 384 (1954) (allowing Louisiana direct Louisiana); (holding Act temporarily employment). consisted injury. infra, respective temporary pay representative, damages "sustained caused ownership, [an] No unavailable automobiles. Numerous situs existed (1947); Rosenthal Warren, 475 438 (CA2), cert. denied, 414 856, 94 159, (1973); Clark Clark, 107 N.H. 351, 222 Atlantic 205 (1966); Tooker Lopez, N.Y.2d 569, 301 N.Y.S.2d 519, 249 Eastern (1969); Babcock Jackson, 473, 240 743, 191 279 (1963). B n.19, Petitioner's statement involves "underwritten, garaged Wisconsin," Brief simply replied underwritten, portion day. former latter involve Recovery pursuant petitioner's "underwritten residents" supported means include phrase. Indeed, recites signed Northbrook, Ill. versions hoary lex loci contractus, depending sequence events, unclear us, arguably construction, party below. Of elsewhere. wooden delicti doctrine. factor analysis, blindly traditional, largely abandoned, doctrine, n.259; fail distinguish relative transaction. ambulance hospital languished dying, medical creditors obvious. bistate beginning ending unwarranted. (Massachusetts purchased patient widow York). govern, likelihood, coverage, allowed. Stacking issued. Nelson Casualty Wis.2d 558, 563-566, nn.2, 3, 217 670, 672, 674, (1974), Clearly then, antistacking thus divergent conclusions Kulko Superior 436 84, 98, 98 1690, 1700, 132 (1978) (no "arguably might" apply); 215, 2585 Delaware, Delaware "may law"); Hanson Denckla, 357 235, 254, n.27, 1228, 1240, 1283 (1958) Florida; "issue jurisdiction, law," decide). "both 'are often closely degree depend considerations.' Shaffer, 224-225, 2590 (BRENNAN, dissenting part). unquestioned, assessing Cf. id., 225, ("the bind defendant prove highly adjudicating controversy"). element frustration Because undoubtedly (1964); 169; 538-543, 519-522; 404, 340 (neither specifically suffer elsewhere offered continental 403, 339 (coverage applied). seek control dictating 1198 (nationwide lack clause). Black's dissent vacated remanded lower-court authoritative moot question, commanded 180-183, 1197-1199. date These began May 28, 1976. remarried June 19, suggests considering encourage shopping. Post, 337. overlooks motivated considerations. We together separately, sufficed Records Section provides, part: "No concerns—respect litigants—are functions performed jurisdictional inquiry, identical. 291-292, (1980), stated: "The concept minimum turn, seen perform related, distinguishable, functions. burdens litigating distant inconvenient forum. acts courts, Reese, Legislative Jurisdiction, Colum.L.Rev. 1587, 1589-1590 minimum-contacts used define see, 872 clear same. 2585, 224-226, 2590-2591 part); 253-254, 1239, (1958); 258, 1241 process, grounds, distinction emerged. inapplicable nation, rather issue; explanation found. probably 1589, 17; 457-458 R. Page 7, 55, Pages 106-107 (3d ed. 1977). frequent failure context underlie suggestions commentators single source Compare Constitutional 61 Cornell 185 (1976) (full credit), (due process); Kirgis, Roles (1976). requirements measured essentially standard. (1954), questions. 70-73, 168-170. concluding bar substantially process. 73, 170. contrast, 544-550, differed significantly 308, 10, Packers. Sumner, Full-Faith-and-Credit-Clause—Its History Purpose, Or.L.Rev. 224, 242 477; 143. observed overly rigid produce anomalous results: "A literal enforcement clause, lead absurd that, wherever conflict arises, enforced other, own." 547, 523. (1979) (footnote omitted). kind ways 413, 807, indicated invoked restrain "any hostility Acts" 24, approved "pose[d] cooperative federalism." 272, 2656, prevention "parochial entrenchment States." major scrutiny cognizable Ins., York. Central apparent "a term much payment." 131 "determine[d] fully 182-183, 131-132. expect normally bearing policy; relevant. reason, relationship, likely C. Carnahan, Contracts 15, 51-52, 47, 264-265, 267-268, 60, 325-327 (2d 1958). Paul Freund aptly perhaps "most ambitious clause." Freund, Chief Stone Laws, 1210, 1233 (1946). Like Bradford Electric Clapper, 286 76 254 (1932), relied, series 1930's 412, 806; 272-273, n.18, n.18 opinion). Traynor, Is Really Necessary?, 657, 675 disregard Nevada's available intrusion justified "obnoxious" 1190. challenging bears burden establishing infringes protected 523-524. equally impinge n.3, 1601. task judge ready access library statutes thoroughly easily discover, savings accrue system. erroneous governing rule. 225-226, part) (such ability exercise transaction). Discrimination nonresidents suspect Currie Schreter, Unconstitutional Laws: Equal Protection, U.Chi.L.Rev. (1960); Privileges Immunities, 69 Yale L.J. 1323 Note, 77 272 (1977). discriminatory substantively detected remedied special analysis; deal varieties unfairness. 199. careful minimal enlarging anticipate possibility enlargement. (1930); (1934); (1936) (similar 11, 4, 457-460. nn. 2-3, 672-674, discussed 316-317, 22. aggregated, "stacked," create fund 339, subject, again useful example. expressly 1-year period thereunder. 146, 635, prescribed specific relevant, always dispositive. (1964), allowed lower override cover taken. attempted control. 68, 167, maintain until determined. prevented 71-72, 169. additional, unarticulated, urging advance disputes them, entitled weight third-party corporation vessel significant, upholding 20, actually whereas recognizes, post, 336-337, liability, actual site dispositive inquiry. More undercut contracting. despite boundaries. "scant today," 309, One offensively broad, "[a]ll lives therein." 148, 635. provision, contains intent Comparison confirms contract; plain. unlike results significance. effective claims. purpose, extent evaluation, likelihood point future. applicability perceived seem reinforces revealed Kryger Wilson, 171, 176, 34, 35, (1916), rejecting challenge error mistaken doctrines cancellation land instead making performance. purely common concerned." confined accrued. gain geographic risk, accrued, interpret 455. "It manifest laws. entered into, died, had. relate circumstance tried directed courts. hence disingenuous characterization 'procedure' 'substance.' 236. also, 232-233. serves. acknowledges sometimes differ 317, 23. plurality, pursues rationale requirement observe "neither unfair." 313. prohibition jurisprudence Amendment. Georgia, Almanac 715 (1935). extensively regulated time. Ga.Code 56-101 et seq. (1933). hint slightest crucial personam exacts double job. 314-315. repetition lived roads. highways. interest, encompass, logic practical sense, nonresident's stack benefit regarding establishes commutation contact; industrial neighboring supports existence contacts. principal "either [plurality's] conclusion." 331. interesting uphold is, reconcile problems solves. questionable measure controversy conscious private 324. scrutinizing strength nonforum draw back discredited practice weighing n.10

Classification Label: 3