Choice of Law

    If there are parties to a law suit who reside in different states, the court must determine which state law applies to each cause of action. The normal test is to evaluate the facts and apply the law of the state which has the most significant contacts or relationship to the cause of action. Washington applies this test:

This court employs a “most significant relationship” standard to determine what law governs in a contracts or torts case. Southwell v. Widing Transp., Inc., 101 Wn.2d 200, 204, 676 P.2d 477 (1984); Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wn.2d 577, 580, 555 P.2d 997 (1976). This standard requires a court to evaluate the contacts of the interested jurisdictions with respect to the claims at issue and the interests and policies of those jurisdictions. Southwell, at 204.

Haberman v WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107, 134, 744 P.2d 1032 (1987).

Tort Claims Arising from Contract

    Haberman v WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107, 159, 744 P.2d 1032 (1987):

Although a choice of law provision in a contract does not govern tort claims arising out of the contract, it may be considered as an element in the most significant relationship test used in tort cases. See Kammerer v. Western Gear Corp., 96 Wn.2d 416, 423, 635 P.2d 708 (1981).

Other State's Immunity Claims