Court Opinion

ID: 9557868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:59:17.99122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:36.496996
License: Public Domain

Judge CASEBOLT,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. In my view, however, the majority reaches issues not presented to the trial court and which we need not treat.
Generally, in the absence of a strong contrary public policy, the parties may choose which forum’s law will govern an action. See Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953). However, they may not stipulate as to the content of that law. See Twohy v. First National Bank, 758 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir.1985) (distinguishing between stipulation as to choice of law and as to meaning and scope of the law, and upholding stipulation as to the body of law to apply).
Here, I read the record to contain a stipulation by the parties that California law should apply to interpret the insurance policy. The parties did not impermissibly attempt to stipulate as to what the substantive law of California provided. Moreover, I perceive no strong contrary public policy issue here, and there is a reasonable basis for the parties’ choice. See Hansen v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 876 P.2d 112 (Colo.App. 1994). Hence, we need not determine choice of law issues.
Further, neither party has raised on appeal any issue concerning which law should apply. See Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. Walk*10er Adjustment Bureau, 198 Colo. 444, 601 P.2d 1369 (1979) (when a conflict of laws question is raised, the Restatement (Second) test concerning most significant relationship is employed). Accordingly, we should not decide that issue. See Dorador v. Cronin, 199 Colo. 85, 605 P.2d 53 (1980) (an appellate court will not pass upon issues which have not been presented for determination in the trial court except in the case of plain or fundamental error); Wolf v. Rose Hill Cemetery Ass’n, 914 P.2d 468 (Colo.App.1995).
For these reasons, I specially concur.