Court Opinion

ID: 9692136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:43:58.958666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:31.734661
License: Public Domain

TATE, Justice
(concurring).
The writer has reservations that the law of Florida must necessarily determine the construction of a standard insurance policy issued in Florida, insofar as it applies to an accident in Louisiana. See my concurring opinion in Doty v. Central Mutual Ins. Co., 186 So.2d 328, 331 (La.App.3d Cir.1966).
’The writer is not prepared to say that the majority errs in its indication that Florida law should govern the interpretation of a standard automobile liability insurance policy issued in Florida. Nevertheless, in the absence of a choice of Florida law by the parties, the writer is likewise not prepared to agree, without full consideration of the issues, that Louisiana may not have the most significant relationship to the transaction, insofar as determining the policy’s application to an accident in Louisiana. See Restatement of Conflict of Laws 2d, Sections 6, 188, 205 (1971).
In the mobile society of today, an insurer issuing a standard liability policy may well be held to the contemplation that such standard policy may apply to an accident in another state in the same manner that identical standard policies issued in this forum state apply. Louisiana’s governmental interest in the regulation of awards to victims of traffic on its highways may be sufficient to justify application of its own standard-policy construction in preference to Florida’s construction — Louisiana’s governmental interest may outweigh Florida’s interest, if any, in application of a Florida-issued policy outside the borders of Florida.
*702However, as the majority opinion notes, the Louisiana and the Florida interpretations are identical, so no choice-of-law issue is actually presented for our determination. With these reservations, I fully concur in the majority opinion.