Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co.
1979 Minn. LEXIS 1680, 289 N.W.2d 43 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may apply its own substantive law to a case, even when the underlying events occurred in another state, if the forum state has significant contacts with the litigation and a substantial governmental interest in applying its law, particularly when the forum's law is considered the 'better rule of law'.
Facts:
- Ralph Hague, a resident of Hager City, Wisconsin, was employed in Red Wing, Minnesota for 15 years.
- Allstate Insurance Co. issued an automobile insurance policy to Ralph Hague in Wisconsin, which covered three vehicles for which separate premiums were paid.
- The policy provided for $15,000 in uninsured motorist coverage for each vehicle.
- On July 1, 1974, Ralph Hague was a passenger on a motorcycle driven by his son when it was struck from behind by an automobile in Pierce County, Wisconsin.
- The driver of the automobile, Richard Borst, was a Wisconsin resident and was uninsured.
- Ralph Hague died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.
- After the accident but before initiating a lawsuit, Ralph Hague's widow, Lavinia Hague, moved to Red Wing, Minnesota, and later remarried and moved to Savage, Minnesota.
Procedural Posture:
- Lavinia Hague was appointed personal representative of the estate of Ralph Hague by the Registrar of Probate for Goodhue County, Minnesota.
- Lavinia Hague filed a declaratory judgment action against Allstate Insurance Co. in a Minnesota district court, seeking to 'stack' the insurance coverages.
- Allstate Insurance Co. moved to dismiss the complaint.
- The district court denied Allstate's motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment in favor of Lavinia Hague.
- Allstate Insurance Co. (defendant-appellant) appealed the district court's order to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where Lavinia Hague was the plaintiff-appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Minnesota law, which permits the 'stacking' of uninsured motorist coverage, apply to an insurance policy dispute when the policy was issued in Wisconsin to a Wisconsin resident who was killed in a Wisconsin accident, but where the decedent worked in Minnesota and his widow subsequently became a Minnesota resident before filing suit?
Opinions:
Majority - Yetka, Justice.
Yes, Minnesota law applies. A court may apply its forum's law when the state has significant contacts with the parties and the occurrence, and when applying its own law advances the forum's governmental interests and represents the better rule of law. The court reasoned that Minnesota's contacts, including the decedent's 15-year employment in Minnesota, the plaintiff's subsequent residence in Minnesota, and the defendant doing business in Minnesota, were substantial. Furthermore, the court applied its five-factor choice-of-law analysis from Milkovich v. Saari and concluded that while predictability of results slightly favored Wisconsin, Minnesota's strong governmental interest in fully compensating its resident accident victims and its policy of allowing stacking as the 'better rule of law' were the decisive factors.
Dissenting - Otis, Justice.
No, Minnesota law should not apply. The rights of the parties should be determined by Wisconsin law. At the time of the accident, all parties involved were residents of Wisconsin, the insurance contracts were written in Wisconsin, and the accident occurred in Wisconsin. These factors overwhelmingly point to the application of Wisconsin law.
Dissenting - Otis, Justice.
No, Minnesota law should not apply because doing so deprives the defendant of its constitutional right to due process and the protection of its 'justified expectations'. All significant contacts—the residence of the parties, the location of the vehicles, the place of the contract, and the site of the accident—were in Wisconsin. The decedent's employment in Minnesota was unrelated to the accident, and the plaintiff's post-accident move to Minnesota is constitutionally insignificant under Supreme Court precedent like Home Ins. Co. v. Dick. Applying Minnesota's 'better rule of law' in the absence of substantial contacts with the litigation ignores the insurer's right to rely on the law of the state where it issued the policy and assessed its risk.
Concurring - Peterson, Justice.
Yes, Minnesota law applies. This result is compelled by the court's prior decision in Milkovich v. Saari, which established the controlling choice-of-law methodology.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the 'governmental interest' and 'better rule of law' prongs of modern choice-of-law analysis, allowing a forum state to apply its own law even with relatively weak connections to the underlying transaction. It demonstrates a court's willingness to prioritize its own public policy, such as compensating resident plaintiffs, over the traditional territorial-based factors like the place of injury or contracting. The decision pushes the constitutional limits of choice-of-law, raising due process concerns about fairness and predictability for defendants, particularly insurers, who may not anticipate being subjected to the laws of a state with only post-event connections to the dispute.
Unlock the full brief for Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co.