Utah Conflicts of Law

From Lawpendium
Jump to: navigation, search
Banner Ad photo UtahWillsBannerAdforLawpendiumPhotoshop_zpscc99065d.png

In Mountain Fuel Supply v. Reliance Insurance Co., 933 F.2d 882 (10th Cir. 1991) that, in conflicts of law situations, the court looks “ . . .to the conflict of laws rules of Utah, the forum state, to determine which state’s laws will be controlling. Id. at 887., citing Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 491, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Rhody v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 771 F.2d 1416 (10th Cir.1985). The Utah Supreme Court, in a case involving conflicts of laws, looked to the Restatement of Conflict. In American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 927 P.2d 186 (Utah 1986), the Utah Supreme Court stated:

Having established that a conflict exists, we must determine what law applies. Under Restatement of Conflict, § 205 cmt. b, “questions involving the extent of contractual obligations are determined by the law chosen by the parties if they have made an effective choice .... Otherwise, these questions are determined by the law selected by application of the rule of § 188.” Section 188 provides:
  1. The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6.
  2. In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties ..., the contacts to be taken into account in ... [determining] the law applicable to an issue include:
(a) the place of contracting,
(b) the place of negotiation of the contract,
(c) the place of performance,
(d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and
(e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.

American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 927 P.2d 186, 188 (Utah 1986), emphasis original.