Equitable Life Assurance Society v. McKay
760 P.2d 871, 306 Or. 493 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oregon's choice-of-law principles, rules governing witness competency, such as another state's 'Deadman's Statute,' are considered procedural and are governed by the law of the forum state (lex fori).
Facts:
- Equitable Life Assurance Society issued two life insurance policies to David McKay, Sr.
- The policies listed the decedent's children from a previous marriage as the sole beneficiaries.
- David McKay, Sr. died on November 17, 1983.
- McKay's widow claimed that the decedent had intended for her to be the beneficiary instead of the children.
- The only evidence supporting the widow's claim was her own testimony and the testimony of an insurance agent concerning transactions with the decedent.
Procedural Posture:
- Equitable Life Assurance Society filed an interpleader action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, naming the decedent's widow and children as defendants.
- The parties stipulated that Washington's substantive law applied to the action.
- The children moved for summary judgment, arguing the Washington Deadman's Statute barred the widow's testimony.
- The U.S. District Court found the Washington statute to be substantive, applied it, and granted summary judgment for the children.
- The widow, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit certified the question of whether the Washington statute is substantive or procedural under Oregon law to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Oregon's choice-of-law rules, is another state's 'Deadman's Statute,' which governs witness competency to testify about transactions with a deceased person, considered procedural and therefore governed by the law of the forum state?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, J.
Yes. A statute governing witness competency, like the Washington Deadman's Statute, is considered procedural and is therefore governed by the law of the forum, which in this case is Oregon. The court reasoned that choice-of-law analysis does not rely on a simple classification of a statute as 'substantive' or 'procedural,' but on a deeper analysis. Citing past Oregon cases like Lilienthal v. Kaufman and McGirl v. Brewer, the court noted that matters of remedy and evidence have historically been treated as procedural issues governed by the law of the forum (lex fori). The court adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, specifically section 137, which states, 'The local law of the forum determines what witnesses are competent to testify.' The court contrasted Oregon's liberal evidence rule (OEC 601), which presumes competency and leaves credibility to the jury, with the policy of a Deadman's Statute, which aims to prevent perjury by making interested witnesses incompetent. Applying Washington's rule would be 'antithetical' to Oregon's chosen method for conducting a jury's search for the truth.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Oregon's adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws approach for determining whether an issue is substantive or procedural. It establishes a clear precedent that evidentiary rules, particularly those concerning witness competency, are procedural and will be governed by the law of the Oregon forum. This prioritizes the state's interest in its own system of judicial administration over the evidentiary policies of another state whose substantive law may otherwise govern the dispute. The ruling provides certainty for litigants in Oregon courts, confirming that Oregon's liberal rules of evidence will apply regardless of conflicting rules in the state where the underlying cause of action arose.
