Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp.

8 Citing cases

  1. Power v. Royal Hyway Tours, Inc.

    3:21-cv-1145 (VLB) (D. Alaska Sep. 23, 2022)

    See Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F.Supp.2d 226, 229-30 (D. Conn. 2002) (finding under Connecticut choice of law rules, the court is to apply the most significant relationship test, which is the place with the most significant relationship to the occurred and the parties). Therefore, the Court finds transferring this case to the District of Alaska is an appropriate exercise of discretion.

  2. Power v. Royal Hyway Tours, Inc.

    3:21-cv-1145 (VLB) (D. Conn. Sep. 23, 2022)

    See Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F.Supp.2d 226, 229-30 (D. Conn. 2002) (finding under Connecticut choice of law rules, the court is to apply the most significant relationship test, which is the place with the most significant relationship to the occurred and the parties). Therefore, the Court finds transferring this case to the District of Alaska is an appropriate exercise of discretion.

  3. U.S. Fidelity Guar. v. S.B. Phillips Co.

    359 F. Supp. 2d 189 (D. Conn. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Applying South Carolina law

    O'Connor, 201 Conn. at 650. Recently, courts applying Connecticut choice-of-law law have used the Restatement approach even where lex loci would lead to the same result. Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F.Supp.2d 226, 229 (D.Conn. 2002); see, Williams v. State Farm Mutual, 229 Conn. 359 (1994) (applied Restatement to a motor vehicle accident and held that state where accident occurred had the most significant relationship with the parties). This court will follow the trend and apply the Restatement analysis adopted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in O'Connor.

  4. Svege v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp.

    329 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Conn. 2004)   Cited 4 times
    In Svege, the plaintiff objected to two of defendant's exhibits, namely, complaints previously filed by Svege arising out of the same event, a motor vehicle accident.

    The Court disagrees with Defendants for the reasons provided below, and will preclude evidence of Plaintiffs' complaints in the other actions. The factual background in the above-captioned matter was previously set forth in the Court's Ruling on Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 48], see Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F. Supp.2d 226 (D. Conn. 2002), familiarity with which is presumed. In this case, Plaintiffs sue the manufacturer and seller of a Freightliner truck that collided with the Plaintiffs' vehicle, claiming that the truck was unreasonably dangerous and defective and that Defendants were negligent in the manufacture and design of the truck and in the warnings and instructions that Defendants provided.

  5. Benefit Concepts New York v. New England Life Ins. Co.

    Case No. 3:03CV1456 (DJS) (D. Conn. Jul. 30, 2004)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the Restatement directed the court to apply New York law where "a

    O'Connor, 201 Conn. at 650. Recently, courts applying Connecticut choice-of-law law have used the Restatement approach even where lex loci would lead to the same result. Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F. Supp.2d 226, 229 (D.Conn. 2002); see, Williams v. State Farm Mutual, 229 Conn. 359 (1994) (applied Restatement to a motor vehicle accident and held that state where accident occurred had the most significant relationship with the parties). This court will follow the trend and apply the Restatement analysis adopted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in O'Connor.

  6. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Dentek, Inc.

    No. 3:01 CV 1212(JBA) (D. Conn. Sep. 2, 2003)   Cited 8 times

    GMAC's potential liability stems from Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 14-154a, which provides: "Any person renting or leasing to another any motor vehicle owned by him shall be liable for any damage to any person or property caused by the operation of such motor vehicle while so rented or leased, to the same extent as the operator would have been liable if he had also been the owner." See also Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F. Supp.2d 226, 232-234 (D. Conn. 2002) (discussing history and purpose of statute). II. Analysis

  7. Gatti v. Forcier

    2003 Ct. Sup. 8188 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

    Indeed the Federal District Court in applying Connecticut law has made use of the Restatement rule in making a choice of law in a wrongful death action. Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 182 F. Sup.2d 226, 230-34 (D.Conn. 2002) (death in Pennsylvania of Connecticut residents; using O'Connor test, most significant relationship in Pennsylvania). In Stephens v. Norwalk Hospital, United States District Court, district of Connecticut, Docket No. 3:00cv998 (August 27, 2001, Arterton, J.), whether a medical malpractice claim for wrongful death was barred by a statute of limitations turned on whether Connecticut or New York law applied.

  8. CRUZ v. TETO

    2003 Ct. Sup. 4890 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

    Ordinarily, the law of the state where the accident occurred will presumptively apply. See, e.g., Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 122 F. Sup.2d 226 (D. Conn. 2002). Moreover, as to CAMRAC, any liability it arguably has to Cruz arises out of conduct it performed in Massachusetts in renting the vehicle to Givens.