Court Opinion

ID: 9459279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:16:08.915156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:06.338052
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The majority has concluded that the New York courts, on the facts of this case, would refuse to apply the Massachusetts wrongful death damage limitation. Accordingly, it has held that the federal district court, sitting in diversity, correctly refused to apply the Massachusetts damage limitation. From this holding I must dissent both because I do not agree that this a proper appraisal of applicable New York law and because I believe that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution bars the New York courts, and federal district courts sitting in diversity, from refusing to apply the Massachusetts limitation on the fajits of this case.
In effect, the majority has concluded that, as a matter of policy, the New York courts would decline to apply such a damage limitation when the plaintiff, or the decedent, is a New York resident. Although such a per se rule would be consistent with the dictum of the New York Court of Appeals in Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, 9 N.Y.2d 34, 211 N.Y.S.2d 133, 172 N.E.2d 526 (1961), it flies in the face of the interest-analysis approach to conflict of laws issues later embraced by that court in Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279 (1966), and subsequent decisions. As this court noted in Gore v. Northeast Airlines, 373 F.2d 717, 723 (1967), these later decisions “have created doubts as to the continued validity of the Kilberg doctrine in New York despite citations approving its vitality in the opinions in these cases.” Indeed, these subsequent eases have sought to cast Kilberg in an interest-analysis light, and have cited the minimal interest that Massachusetts, in that case, had in the application of its law, in light of the mere fortuity that the airplane there happened to crash in Massachusetts, in 'contrast with the more substantial New York interest based on the facts that the journey during which the mishap occurred began in New York, the ticket was purchased in New York, and plaintiff and decedent were both New York residents.
The majority purports to decide this case on interest-analysis grounds. However, the sole interest that it has found in New York emanates from the facts of plaintiff’s and decedent’s New York residence. Such an analysis simply proves too much; for it is tantamount to a per se rule that the courts will not apply such foreign damage limitations when the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state. Thus, I believe the majority’s approach amounts to an insupportable abandonment of interest-analysis principles with regard to foreign damage limitations.
Appellee has correctly noted that the New York courts have never honored a foreign damage limitation such as that in issue. However, it is also true that the New York courts have never considered a case in which the interests of New York, in relation to those of the foreign state, were as minimal as they are here. The incident at the root of this litigation, the alleged malpractice of Dr. Warren, does not have the inter-state flavor of the Kilberg facts — death caused while in transit from one state to another. Here the decedent made a deliberate choice to undergo the operation in Massachusetts at defendant hospital. Hence, he journeyed into Massachusetts and registered in defendant hospital *448where he was under the care of defendant, Dr. Warren. The alleged negligence that resulted in decedent’s death, the operation by Dr. Warren, occurred wholly within Massachusetts under the care of Massachusetts residents and in a Massachusetts institution. New York’s only connection with this occurrence was the patient’s permanent residence in New York. I do not see that New York’s interest in this occurrence is enhanced by the fact that this Massachusetts physician and Massachusetts institution have such an eminent reputation that a substantial number of their patients, many from New York, are not Massachusetts residents and choose to come into Massachusetts and undergo treatment there; for there is no evidence that either defendant solicited patients from outside Massachusetts— their popularity is due solely to their reputation and the choice of the individual patients.
In my opinion the Massachusetts interests and contacts with the occurrence underlying this litigation should predominate. In addition to its interest in protecting its citizens and institutions from excessive recoveries, an important consideration behind the Massachusetts limitation is its policy of keeping liability premiums as low as possible for its residents. The significant differential that the majority has noted between malpractice insurance premiums in New York and those in Massachusetts is some testimony to the success of this policy. This interest of Massachusetts is fortified by the fact that the insurance policy from which any recovery will be paid was issued in Massachusetts. The fact that the policy has no coverage limitation in wrongful death cases, as noted by the majority, is irrelevant; for the difference in premiums makes it clear that the Massachusetts damage limitation is considered by insurance companies in calculating premiums for liability insurance issued in Massachusetts. Therefore, if we are to take the New York courts at their word that they follow an interest-analysis approach to torts conflict of laws problems, I can see no escape from the conclusion that Massachusetts interests predominate here and that the New York Court would on these facts be impelled to apply the Massachusetts damage limitation.
This court, in Ciprari v. Servicos Aereos Cruzeiro, affirming 359 F.2d 855 (1966), 245 F.Supp. 819 (S.D.N.Y., 1965), had occasion to consider whether the New York courts would apply a foreign damage limitation in a case in which the interests of the foreign state were substantial. We held that the damage limitation was applicable. The majority, however, suggests that Ciprari is no longer correct because that case relied on Dym v. Gordon, 16 N.Y.2d 120, 262 N.Y.S.2d 463, 209 N.E.2d 792 (1965), which has since been substantially discredited. See Tooker v. Lopez, 24 N.Y.2d 569, 301 N.Y.S.2d 519, 249 N.E.2d 394 (1969). But a reading of Ciprari reveals that the court there relied on the entire line of cases developing the interest-analysis approach in New York, and that Dym, as then the most recent case in that line, was only one of many cases cited. And, in fact, the interests of the foreign state relative to those of New York were even greater in Ciprari than in Dym. Therefore, in the absence of any criticism of our Ciprari holding by the New York Court of Appeals, I would not abandon our analysis in that case, as the majority appears to do, and would reach the same conclusion we reached in Ciprari —that the New York Court would apply the foreign damage limitation.
In any event, even if the majority were correct that the New York courts would refuse to apply the Massachusetts damage limitation against a New York plaintiff, I would hold that such an approach, when applied to a case in which the contacts with Massachusetts are as great as they are here, violates the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. In Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, 309 F.2d 553 (en banc) (1962), cert. den. 372 U.S. 912, 83 S.Ct. 726, 9 L.Ed.2d 720 (1962), this cir*449cuit held that “the ruling of the New York Court of Appeals in Kilberg was a proper exercise of the state’s power to develop conflict of laws doctrine.” (p. 556). Thus, there was no breach of the full faith and credit clause when the New York Court ignored the Massachusetts damage limitation on the Kilberg facts. However, the majority in Pearson explicitly recognized that, in a case in which the Massachusetts interests were greater relative to the New York interests, it would be a constitutional violation for the New York courts to refuse to honor the foreign damage limitation. In this regard, Judge Kaufman wrote for the majority:
We may concede that the Wrongful Death Statute of Massachusetts, almost certainly designed with an eye toward the regulation of occurrences transpiring wholly within Massachusetts, should be honored fully and completely when the incident under litigation is a local one. Such, we take it, is the import of Home Insurance Co. v. Dick (citation omitted). But we cannot concede that Massachusetts has a constitutionally protected claim to the unqualified application of its statute in cases where there is an overwhelmingly interstate flavor, (p. 561).
I cannot see how the alleged malpractice and subsequent death of plaintiff’s decedent can be classified as anything other than a local incident. Therefore, it appears to me that the clear import of this court’s language in Pearson is that, in a case such as that presently before us, the full faith and credit clause would mandate the New York courts to apply the Massachusetts Wrongful Death Statute in its entirety, including the damage limitation. Hence, even if the majority and the district court are correct in their appraisal of New York law, the district court was nevertheless in error in refusing to apply the Massachusetts damage limitation to this case.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the district court.