Hammersmith v. TIG Insurance

19 Citing briefs

  1. First Choice Federal Credit Union v. The Wendy's Company et al

    BRIEF in Support re Motion to Dismiss re: 32 Consolidated Amnended Class Action Complaint

    Filed August 22, 2016

    And Courts have recognized that states have an interest in regulating businesses operating in their states, not just businesses headquartered in their states. Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 232 (New York’s interest in protecting insurers from fraud was implicated even though insurer was not a New York resident because “[t]here is no evidence that New York intended its . . . rule to protect only resident insurers, rather than all insurers doing business in the state of New York.”) (emphasis in original); see also McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 225 P.3d 516, 530 (Cal.

  2. Berks Plant Design And Maintenance, Inc. v. Gaf Materials Corporation

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Count III of the Amended Complaint

    Filed May 22, 2017

    Step two, the final step in the choice of law analysis, requires the court to assess the relevant contacts of each state based on the underlying facts. Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 231. Plaintiff’s NJCFA claim as pleaded fails both steps.

  3. Danganan, v. Guardian Protection Services

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Strike Class Allegations

    Filed August 21, 2015

    “Pennsylvania applies the…flexible, ‘interests/contacts’ methodology to contract choice-of-law questions.” Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 226–27. This analysis requires the court to “weigh the contacts on a qualitative scale according to the policies and interests underlying the particular issue.”

  4. THE MICHAEL S. RULLE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST v. AGL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

    Memorandum of Law re MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Certificate of Service

    Filed July 28, 2010

    If, however, “there are relevant differences between the laws, then the court should examine the governmental policies underlying each law, and classify the conflict as a ‘true,’ ‘false,’ or ‘unprovided-for’ situation.” Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 230. “A ‘true’ conflict exists when both states have an interest in applying their own law.

  5. THE MICHAEL S. RULLE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST v. AGL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

    MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

    Filed May 18, 2010

    If, however, “there are relevant differences between the laws, then the court should examine the governmental policies underlying each law, and classify the conflict as a ‘true,’ ‘false,’ or ‘unprovided-for’ situation.” Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 230. “A ‘true’ conflict exists when both states have an interest in applying their own law.

  6. THE MICHAEL S. RULLE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST v. AGL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed March 26, 2010

    If, however, “there are relevant differences between the laws, then the court should examine the governmental policies underlying each law, and classify the conflict as a ‘true,’ ‘false,’ or ‘unprovided-for’ situation.” Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 230. “A ‘true’ conflict exists when both states have an interest in applying their own law.

  7. Magerman v. Mercer

    Memorandum Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions re MOTION for Sanctions

    Filed September 22, 2017

    Where there is a true conflict of laws, as here, “Pennsylvania courts use the ‘most significant relationship’ test, which qualitatively weighs the parties’ contacts with the forums ‘according to their relation to the policies and interests underlying the issues in dispute.” Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 231. To determine the “most significant relationship,” courts consider factors listed in Section 6 of the Restatement, which are: (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of a particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) the ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.

  8. Riaubia v. Hyundai Motor America

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed December 23, 2016

    Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules require a three-step analysis. Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 229. The first step is to determine whether an actual conflict exists; if no conflict exists, the law of the forum state applies.

  9. Kvaerner North American Construction Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company

    BRIEF in Opposition re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Responsive Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Choice of Law

    Filed December 16, 2016

    In addition to determining the state with the most meaningful connection to the claims at issue, this Court must also weigh these connections in relation to the policies and interests of the state. Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 231. West Virginia, as the location of both the Project insured under the Policy and the bad- faith investigation of the claims, has a strong interest in regulating large-scale construction within the state.

  10. THE MICHAEL S. RULLE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST v. AGL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and certificate of service

    Filed June 8, 2010

    That case dealt solely with an insurance coverage claim under a policy that contained no choice of law provision, and the Court tailored its choice of law analysis to the contract issues before it. Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 226- Case 2:10-cv-00231-BMS Document 26 Filed 06/08/10 Page 11 of 14 9 4475128 27, 231, 233-35 (3d Cir. 2007).8 Contrary to Plaintiff’s implication, no tort claims were at issue in that case: the “remaining issues in dispute” were contractual. Yet, even under Alaska law, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.