It is axiomatic that a trial court is bound by Supreme Court precedent. See Martin v. Plainville, 40 Conn. App. 179, 182, 669 A.2d 1242 (1996) (Appellate Court, as intermediate court, is prevented from reexamining or reevaluating Supreme Court precedent); Brunswick v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 25 Conn. App. 543, 553, 596 A.2d 463 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 222 Conn. 541, 610 A.2d 1260 (1992) (same); Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Assn., 9 Conn. App. 199, 203-204, 518 A.2d 394 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 802, 519 A.2d 1206 (1987) (same); see also O'Connor v. O'Connor, 4 Conn. App. 19, 20, 492 A.2d 207 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (same). This principle is inherent in a hierarchical judicial system.

Although neither party briefed the conflict of laws issue on appeal, both parties addressed the issue in motions filed with the trial court, and, thus, the record before us is sufficient to resolve this issue. In deciding conflict of laws issues, we are guided by the principles set forth in our previous decision in O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986). In O'Connor, we recognized that "[t]his court has traditionally adhered to the doctrine that the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury, or lex loci delicti.

None of our prior cases that cite this quote by former United States Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo; see B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921) p. 151; discussed overruling the existing construction of a criminal statute. See Craig v. Driscoll, supra, 330 (deciding whether to recognize common-law action against purveyor that negligently served alcohol to adult patron who, because of intoxication, injured third person, and noting fact that parties were unlikely to consider question of what law would govern their conduct if it were to result in injury); George v. Ericson, 250 Conn. 312, 317-18, 736 A2d 889 (1999) (overruling common-law rule of evidence excluding testimony of nontreating physicians and replacing it with standard governing testimony of expert witnesses in general); Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653, 661, 680 A2d 242 (1996) (reinterpretation of statute governing tort liability); O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 644, 648, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (rejection of lex loci doctrine in tort actions). Furthermore, when Justice Cardozo's statement is viewed in the larger context of his chapter entitled, "Adherence to Precedent," it does not support the majority's suggestion that criminal actors are like those who engage in tortious conduct and rarely give thought to what law will govern their criminal behavior.

A majority of states abandoning lex loci have adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971). Under this approach, a court applies the "law of the state where the injury occurred . . . unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship . . . to the occurrence and the parties." Restatement (Second), §§ 146 and 175. At this writing, 21 states follow the Restatement (Second)'s "most significant relationship" approach, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. See Ehredt v. DeHavilland Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd., 705 P.2d 446 (Alaska 1985); Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 703 P.2d 1190 (1985); First Nat'l Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek, 182 Colo. 437, 514 P.2d 314 (1973); O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (R.2d where lex loci produces arbitrary or irrational results); Traveler's Indemnity Co. v. Lake, 594 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991); Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1980); Johnson v. Pischke, 108 Idaho 397, 700 P.2d 19 (1985); Ingersoll v. Klein, 46 Ill.2d 42, 262 N.E.2d 593 (1970); Hubbard Mfg. Co. v. Greeson, 515 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 1987) (R.2d where the place of the tort is an insignificant contact); Fuerste v. Bemis, 156 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 1968); Lee v. Ford Motor Co., 457 So.2d 193 (La. Ct. App. 1984), cert. denied, 461 So.2d 319 (La. 1984); Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982); Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 Mass. 358, 358 N.E.2d 416 (1976) ( lex loci unless another state has a more substantial interest); Mitchell v. Craft, 211 So.2d 509 (Miss. 1969) ( lex loci unless another state has a more significant relationship); Kennedy v. Dixon, 439 S.W.2d 173 (Mo. 1969); Harper v. Silva, 224 Neb. 645, 399 N.W.2d 826 (1987) ( lex loci unless another state has a more

Additionally, at least two other jurisdictions have also recognized that lex loci was an artificial product of the common law vested rights theory. See O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 643, 519 A.2d 13, 18 (Conn. 1986); Gutierrez, 583 S.W.2d at 314-316. While we do not ignore our duty to ensure that our decisions are uniform and predictable, we also have a corresponding duty to recognize change and to participate in the growth of the law.

"The effect of misrepresentation, duress, undue influence and mistake upon a contract is determined by the law selected by application of the rules of §§ 187-188." The plaintiff makes the following claims on appeal: (1) the New York choice of law provision contained in the antenuptial agreement should not have been given effect because (a) it had been obtained by improper means and, alternatively, (b) to give effect to the provision would contravene a fundamental policy of the state that has a materially greater interest in the determination of the issue, namely, Connecticut; see 1 Restatement (Second), supra, § 187; (2) in the absence of an express choice of law by the parties, an application of the test set forth in the § 188 of the Restatement, and the principles set forth in O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 638, 519 A.2d 13 (1986), compels the conclusion that, because Connecticut has the most significant relationship to the parties and the antenuptial agreement, the agreement must be interpreted in accordance with Connecticut law, under which it is unenforceable; and (3) even if the New York choice of law provision is valid, the antenuptial agreement is unenforceable under New York law. We are not persuaded that the referee's finding that the parties' choice of New York law was valid is not supported by the record.

W. Reese, 'Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second,' 28 Law Contemp. Prob. 679, 699 (1963); accord Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., [ 416 Pa. 1, 23-24, 203 A.2d 796 (1964)]; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 26 Wis.2d 617, 622, 133 N.W.2d 408 (1965); R. Sedler, 'The Governmental Interest Approach to Choice of Law: An Analysis and a Reformulation,' 25 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 181, 230 (1977)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 644-45, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (refusal to adhere to lex loci delicti does not defeat the legitimate prelitigation expectations of parties founded in reliance on our prior decisions). Moreover, we have deemed it appropriate, in other contexts, to depart from common law precedents where we have found compelling reasons and logic for doing so.

Under Connecticut law, lex loci delicti, "the doctrine that the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury," typically applies. O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 637, 519 A.2d 13 (1986). Lex loci delicti would require the application of Nigerian law because the Adamu plaintiffs' injuries are alleged to have occurred there.

¶ 68. Our conclusion that Wisconsin tort law applies to determine the type and amount of damages the insured may collect from the insurance company is supported by cases in other jurisdictions. ¶ 69. Gillette and Ostlund rely on four cases that support the conclusion we reach: Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake, 594 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991); O'Connor v. O'Connor, 519 A.2d 13 (Conn. 1986); Thomas v. Hanmer, 109 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. 1985); and Miller v. White, 702 A.2d 392 (Vt. 1997). ¶ 70. First, these cases support our interpretation of the policy that the phrase "damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle" requires us to apply Wisconsin tort choice of law rules to determine whether damages claimed by an insured from an insurance company are available in a tort cause of action against an underinsured motorist.

Under Connecticut choice of law rules, for the plaintiff's claims that sound in tort, namely, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and CUTPA, we apply the law of the state in which the plaintiff was injured, unless to do so would produce an arbitrary or irrational result. See O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 649-50, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) . For the plaintiff's contract claim, we adopt the "significant relationship" test, and presume the application of the law of the state in which the bulk of the transaction took place. See Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 243 Conn. 401, 406-407, 703 A.2d 1132 (1997), on appeal after remand, 252 Conn. 774, 750 A.2d 1051 (2000) .