Court Opinion

ID: 9652827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:32:57.560781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:54.426224
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion and in its reasoning in all respects save one. The decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Hardiman v. Fire Ass’n of Philadelphia, 212 Pa. 383, 390, 61 A. 990, .991, cited in the majority opinion, sets out the applicable Pennsylvania conflict-of-laws rule. The Court in the cited case said: “The authorities are well settled that, where a policy is required to be countersigned by an agent in another state, the contract is to be governed by the law of the state where the agent resides.” It is clear that the policy in the instant case was to be countersigned in New Jersey by an agent resident therein, was in fact countersigned by such an agent and that therefore the law of New Jersey must govern the substantive rights of the parties. It is unnecessary to make any application of the parol evidence rule under the circumstances of the case at bar.