In the absence of a contractual provision, however, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the contract shall govern. Baites v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 733 So. 2d 320, 322-23 (Miss.Ct.App. 1998). Two options are apparent: Mississippi or Georgia. The court concludes that Georgia law applies because Georgia has the most significant relationship to this contract.
See Denman v. Snapper Div., 131 F.3d 546, 548 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Klaxon v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S. Ct. 1020, 1021-22, 85 L. Ed. 1477 (1941)). Mississippi has adopted a "center of gravity" test for choice of law issues, pursuant to which the court applies the substantive law of the state that has the most substantial contacts with the parties and the subject matter of the action, which is determined by reference to the factors identified in §§ 6 and 188 of the Restatement (Second) on Conflicts. Baites v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 733 So. 2d 320, 322 (Miss.Ct.App. 1998); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Green, 794 So. 2d 170, 180 (Miss. 2001). Section 6 sets forth a number of broad factors that will typically be relevant to a choice of law determination, including
The Court of Appeals has agreed with that argument, but we find application to the present set of facts inappropriate. See Baites v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 733 So.2d 320, 323 (Miss.Ct.App. 1998). In Baites the Court of Appeals held the principal location of the risk shifted to Mississippi, but held that Mississippi law would not apply because the shift was not foreseeable because of the insured's deception.
¶ 14. A recent Court of Appeals opinion, Baites v. State FarmMut. Auto. Ins. Co., 733 So.2d 320, 321 (Miss.Ct.App. 1998), properly dealt with the application of the principles stated in O'Rourke to facts similar to those of the instant case. The policy in Baites was a Tennessee policy issued in Tennessee to a person claimed to be a resident of Tennessee. The fact that the accident occurred in Mississippi, and that the person turned out to actually live in Mississippi, did not change the determination that Tennessee law applied.
1993). See also Baites v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 733 So.2d 320, 322 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).Sims v. Stewart, 973 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Tenn. App. 1998).
Mississippi courts have applied section 193 to actions on insurance contracts, including uninsured motorist coverage. See Baites v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 733 So. 2d 320, 323 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). However, if certain conditions set forth in comment b to section 193 are met, Mississippi courts apply section 188 to casualty insurance contracts, rather than section 193.
As an initial matter, this court agrees with plaintiff that Mississippi law applies to the interpretation of the UM insurance policy issued by EPAC in this case. Mississippi appellate courts have consistently held that Mississippi law should apply to the interpretation of insurance policies issued in this state, see Baites v. State Farm, 733 So.2d 320, 322 (Miss.App. 1998), and it is undisputed that the UM policy in this case was issued to plaintiff's mother in Corinth. Defendant argues that "Tennessee law is controlling regarding the release entered into between the Simpsons and Shelter" and that, accordingly, "Tenn.
"Section 188 narrows the focus of § 6 by setting forth certain principles to be applied in making choice of law determinations in contract actions." Baites v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 733 So. 2d 320, 322 (Miss Ct. App. 1998). Section 188 provides that the following factors should be considered in such actions: the place of negotiation of the contract; the place of contracting; the place of performance; the location of the subject matter of the contract; and the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.
Farmers submits that decisions applying Mississippi choice of law rules consistently place the greatest emphasis on the principal location of the risk and place of contracting in determining which state's law to apply to issues of insurance contract interpretation and construction. Farmers cites Ford v. State Farm Ins. Co., 625 So.2d 792 (Miss. 1993); O'Rourke, 624 So.2d 84; and Baites v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 733 So.2d 320 (Miss.Ct.App. 1998), as support for the trial court's determination that, under the center of gravity test, the only factor favoring application of Mississippi law was the fact that Mrs. Owens was a Mississippi resident, and in determining that no overriding Mississippi public policy existed which (1) overcame the reasonable expectation of the contracting parties that their respective rights would be determined with respect to Tennessee law or (2) compelled a finding that Tennessee law should not apply to the claim of a Mississippi resident under the facts of this case. ¶ 22. Citing Boardman, O'Rourke, and Baites, Farmers argues that application of Tennessee law to Mrs. Owens's claim does not violate Mississippi public policy, and that Mississippi's public policy in favor of stacking, and against efforts to exclude cases and persons from coverage of uninsured provisions of policies, is not so strong as to override the reasonable expectations of parties that coverage questions will be governed by the l