Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague

449 U.S. 302 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ralph Hague, died of injuries suffered when a motorcycle on which he was a passenger was struck from behind by an automobile. The accident occurred in Wisconsin just immediately across the Minnesota border. The operators of both vehicles were Wisconsin residents, as was the decedent, who, at the time of the accident, resided with P in Hager City, Wis., which is one and one-half miles from the Minnesota border. Ralph had been employed in Minnesota for the 15 years immediately preceding his death and had commuted daily from Wisconsin to his place of employment. Neither the operator of the motorcycle nor the operator of the automobile carried valid insurance. Ralph held a policy issued by D covering three automobiles owned by him and containing an uninsured motorist clause insuring him against loss incurred from accidents with uninsured motorists. The uninsured motorist coverage was limited to $15,000 for each automobile. After the accident, but prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, P, Ralph’s wife, moved right across the border to Wisconsin. P married a Minnesota resident and established residence in Minnesota. A Minnesota Registrar of Probate appointed P personal representative of her deceased husband's estate. P brought this action in Minnesota District Court seeking a declaration under Minnesota law that the $15,000 uninsured motorist coverage on each of her late husband's three automobiles could be 'stacked' to provide total coverage of $45,000. D claimed Wisconsin law governed the issue of stacking. D argued that the insurance policy was delivered in Wisconsin, the accident occurred in Wisconsin, and all persons involved were Wisconsin residents at the time of the accident. The court concluded that Minnesota's choice-of-law rules required the application of Minnesota law permitting stacking. The court refused to apply Wisconsin law as 'inimical to the public policy of Minnesota' and granted summary judgment for P. The court applied Minnesota law, and it was affirmed on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The state court examined the conflict-of-laws issue in terms of (1) predictability of result, (2) maintenance of interstate order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law. The court concluded that the fifth factor -- application of the better rule of law -- favored selection of Minnesota law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.