National Union Fire Insurance v. RLC Corp.

11 Citing cases

  1. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake

    594 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991)   Cited 224 times
    Holding that Delaware employs the "most significant relationship test"

    Delaware courts apply the modern "most significant relationship" test to resolve conflicts issues arising out of the interpretation and validity of contracts. See, e.g., Oliver B. Cannon Son, Inc. v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., Del.Supr., 394 A.2d 1160, 1166 (1978); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. RLC Corp., Del.Super., 449 A.2d 257, 261, appeal denied, Del.Supr., 454 A.2d 765 (1982); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS § 188 (1971). However, we also apply the lex loci delicti doctrine in most tort cases.

  2. CVR Ref. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co.

    N21C-01-260 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 13, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "In determining whether a Court should grant a motion to stay when it is akin to a motion for a dismissal, it is incumbent upon the Court in its discretion to weigh the various factors presented and determine fairly, in light of all the circumstances, where the controversy can best and most economically and expeditiously be determined."Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 260 (Del. Super. 1982). See Ethica Corp. Finance S.r.L v. Dana Inc., 2018 WL 3954205, at *4 (Del. Super. Aug. 16, 2018).

  3. In re Estate of Sullivan

    C.A. No. 2018-0741-PWG (Del. Ch. Feb. 22, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    "[T]he traditional choice of law guidelines followed by the Delaware courts [provided that] issues pertaining to . . . the construction and validity of a contract [are] governed by the law of the place where it is made or the place of contracting." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 261 (Del. Super. 1982) (citing Harris v. New York Life Ins. Co., 33 A.2d 154, 157 (Del. Ch. 1943)); see also Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 177 F.2d 404, 406 (3d Cir. 1949) ("It is generally the law that the place where a policy of insurance is delivered shall be deemed to be the place where the contract was made"). "Issues relating to performance of the agreement are resolved pursuant to the application of the laws of the jurisdiction in which the contract was performed."

  4. Metzker v. International Paper Co.

    825 F. Supp. 641 (D. Del. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    That approach "indicates that the laws of the jurisdiction which had the most significant relationship to the transaction and parties would control the substantive legal questions." National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 261 (Del.Super. 1982), app. den. RLC Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 454 A.2d 765 (Del. 1982). The "most significant relationship test," requires a court to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the matter at hand by considering the following factors:

  5. New Zealand Kiwifruit Mktg. v. Wilmington

    825 F. Supp. 1180 (D. Del. 1993)   Cited 22 times
    Stating that an employer held liable for his employee's negligence can seek indemnification from the employee as a joint tortfeasor

    That approach "indicates that the laws of the jurisdiction which had the most significant relationship to the transaction and parties would control the substantive legal questions." National Union FireIns. Co. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 261 (Del.Super. 1982). In applying the "most significant relationship test," in contract cases, Delaware courts place considerable emphasis upon "(a) the place of contracting, (b) the place of negotiation of the contract, (c) the place of performance, (d) the location and subject matter of the contract, and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties."

  6. Banco Nominees Ltd. v. Iroquois Brands

    748 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Del. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that English courts would be better positioned to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses residing in the U.K.

    In conducting conflict of law analyses in contract disputes, the Delaware courts have recently moved away from the traditional "place of contracting" test and have used the more flexible Restatement (Second) test of determining which forum has the "most significant relationship" to the transaction and the parties. See, e.g., Oliver B. Cannon and Son v. Dorr-Oliver, Del.Supr., 394 A.2d 1160, 1166 (1978); National U. Fire Ins. Co. v. RLC Corp., Del.Super., 449 A.2d 257, 261 (1982); Coca-Cola Bottling of Elizabethtown v. Coca-Cola Co., 668 F. Supp. 906, 918 (D.Del. 1987). The Restatement (Second) approach identifies the following factors as relevant in resolving a conflict of law question: the place of contracting; the place of negotiation of the contract; the place of performance; the location of the subject matter of the contract; and the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties.

  7. Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

    597 F. Supp. 934 (D.D.C. 1984)   Cited 37 times
    Noting that “[s]tates' interests in compensatory damages differ from those involved in punitive damages” and that “[w]hen the primary purpose of a rule of law is to deter or punish conduct, the States with the most significant interests are those in which the conduct occurred and in which the principal place of business and place of incorporation of defendant are located”

    The location of the instant litigation is fortuitous. Keene could have brought this case before numerous other Federal Courts. The District, with no significant relationship to the insurance contracts in question, is a disinterested rather than an interested forum. See National UnionFire Insurance Co. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 262 (Del.Super. 1982). Both parties doing business in the District also has no bearing on the punitive damages issue.

  8. Danner v. Hertz Corp.

    584 F. Supp. 293 (D. Del. 1984)   Cited 5 times
    Using rental contract to set lessor's uninsured motorist coverage obligation to lessee

    Cf. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Spinelli, 443 A.2d 1286 (Del. 1982) (suit against insurance carrier to recover uninsured motorist benefits is akin to a contract action for purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations). Traditionally, Delaware courts would look to the jurisdiction where the contract is formed to determine issues involving the validity and construction of a contract. See National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 261 (Del.Super. 1982); Harris v. New York Life Insurance Co., 27 Del. Ch. 170, 33 A.2d 154, 157 (1943). Recently, however, the Delaware Supreme Court has indicated a move toward adopting the "most significant relationship test" set forth in section 188 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. See Oliver B. Cannon and Son v. Dorr-Oliver, 394 A.2d 1160 (Del. 1978). Under either the traditional rule or the "modern" Restatement approach, the Court concludes that New York law applies to the substantive legal issues in this action: the place of contracting was New York; the subject matter of the contract — a leased car — was registered and principally garaged in New York; and, finally, the contract contemplated that plaintiff would return the car to New York. See generally Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1971).

  9. Martinez v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

    86 A.3d 1102 (Del. 2014)   Cited 81 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding dismissal under forum non conveniens where "the plaintiff in the case is a citizen of a foreign state whose law is at issue . . . the injury in the case occurred in that foreign state, and the case turns on unsettled issues of foreign law"

    IM2 Merchandising & Mfg., Inc. v. Tirex Corp., 2000 WL 1664168, at *10 (Del. Ch. Nov. 2, 2000) (“The great weight given to a plaintiff's interest in having novel Delaware law questions decided in our own courts under the Cryo–Maid test suggests that a defendant's interest in having the courts of the jurisdiction of the governing law decide important legal issues ought also be given some weight.”); see also Aveta Inc. v. Colon, 942 A.2d 603, 610 (Del.Ch.2008) (noting that the “broad statements [in Taylor ] notwithstanding, the fact that courts continue to consider this Cryo–Maid factor must mean that it retains some viability and that it is possible a defendant can demonstrate overwhelming hardship under it” and dismissing the case because foreign law applied and it created an overwhelming hardship for the defendant); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 261–62 (Del.Super.1982) (considering the fact that Delaware law applied as a factor that weighed against dismissal). Prior Law Changed

  10. Martinez v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

    No. 669, 2012 (Del. Feb. 20, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Ch. Nov. 2, 2000) ("The great weight given to a plaintiff's interest in having novel Delaware law questions decided in our own courts under the Cryo-Maid test suggests that a defendant's interest in having the courts of the jurisdiction of the governing law decide important legal issues ought also be given some weight."); see also Aveta Inc. v. Colon, 942 A.2d 603, 610 (Del. Ch. 2008) (noting that the "broad statements [in Taylor] notwithstanding, the fact that courts continue to consider this Cryo-Maid factor must mean that it retains some viability and that it is possible a defendant can demonstrate overwhelming hardship under it" and dismissing the case because foreign law applied and it created an overwhelming hardship for the defendant); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 261-62 (Del. Super. 1982) (considering the fact that Delaware law applied as a factor that weighed against dismissal). Prior Law Changed