Opinion
Civil No. 00-1560-AS.
October 17, 2001
ORDER
Presently before the court are cross-motions of the parties seeking a ruling by the court clarifying which state laws will govern this action. The states under consideration are Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Illinois.
This action was transferred to this court from the State of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In accordance with Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 637-39 (1964) and Muldoon v. Tropitone Furniture Co., 1 F.3d 964, 965 (9th Cir. 1993), the court must apply the choice of law rules of the state in which the action was originally filed.
The parties agree that Washington law governs Plaintiff's contract claims. The court finds that Washington law controls Plaintiff's statutory claims as well. The insurance policy was written in Washington, entered into in Washington with a Washington resident and was administered primarily in the State of Washington. Nevada has no interest in protecting an Oregon citizen from violations of its insurance code in this scenario.
Similarly, the court finds that Washington law applies to Plaintiff's tort claims. In Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 921 P.2d 933 (1996), the Nevada Supreme Court adopted a revised "significant relationship" test which dictates that the law of the forum state governs unless another state has an overwhelming interest in the litigation. The court then explained that:
Another state has an overwhelming interest if two or more of the following factors are met:
(a) it is the place where the conduct giving rise to the injury occurred;
(b) it is the place where the injury is suffered;
(c) the parties have the same domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, or place of business and it is different from the forum state;
(d) it is the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
This action is brought by a third party against an insurance company for the allegedly improper handling of the third party's claim. The Washington offices of the insurance company were primarily responsible for the handling of the claim despite the fact that Plaintiff corresponded with individuals in Nevada, Oregon and Illinois with regard to his claim. The relationship between the parties is centered in Washington, where the policy was originally issued, where Plaintiff obtained the motor vehicle and where the major decisions regarding Plaintiff's claim were made. The court finds that Washington has an overwhelming interest in this action and that the law of Washington should apply to Plaintiff's tort claims.
In response to the parties' cross-motions (#43 45) for a determination of what law applies to this action, the court finds that Washington law applies to all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in his amended civil complaint. This decision is based on the choice of law provisions of the State of Nevada and is consistent with the determination made by Edward C. Reed, District Judge for the United State District Court for the District of Nevada, that Nevada law does not apply to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.