513 N.W.2d 467, 473 (Minn.1994)
Timothy Jepson purchased a general liability automobile insurance contract from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin through the Dilworth Agency, Inc., in Dilworth, Minnesota, in March 1983.1 The policy, issued on April 7, 1983, was effective from March 18, 1983, to March 18, 1984, and named Timothy and Deborah Jepson, National Muffler Shops, Inc., and National Muffler Warehouses, Inc., as insureds, with the latter two being North Dakota corporations listing a Fargo, North Dakota address.2
The policy covered seven vehicles, six registered in North Dakota and one in Indiana, none of which were registered in Minnesota.3 Premiums were calculated using North Dakota rates and paid by one of the corporations.4 The policy included a North Dakota Amendment of Cancellation Condition Endorsement and a North Dakota Basic Personal Injury Protection Endorsement.5
On December 18, 1983, Jepson and his wife were passengers in a real estate agent's car involved in a traffic accident in Phoenix, Arizona.6 Jepson settled with the at-fault driver for the $250,000 liability limits and received $100,000 from the coverage on the car in which he was riding.7 He applied for and received no-fault benefits from General Casualty under North Dakota law.8
Jepson brought a suit in North Dakota over a dispute regarding medical expenses under the personal injury protection coverage.9 The lawsuit settled prior to filing in district court.10 In June 1991, Jepson brought a declaratory judgment action in Minnesota seeking underinsured motorist benefits and insisting that those benefits be stacked.11 The trial court concluded that Minnesota law applied and that Jepson could stack benefits on all seven vehicles.12 General Casualty appealed to the court of appeals after its motion for amended findings was denied, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision before the Supreme Court of Minnesota granted review.13
Whether Minnesota law or North Dakota law governs the resolution of this underinsured motorist coverage dispute?14
In analyzing choice of law, the court first considers whether there is an actual conflict between the laws of the states.15 If there is a conflict, the court then determines whether the law of either state can be constitutionally applied.16 The court examines if the state has significant contacts creating state interests such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.17 If both can be applied, the court applies the five choice-influencing factors from Milkovich v. Saari.18 Those factors are: (1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law.19
No. There is an actual conflict because North Dakota would enforce the anti-stacking provision while Minnesota would not.20 Both states have sufficient contacts for constitutional application, including Jepson's residence in Minnesota, purchase through a Minnesota agency, and use of vehicles in Minnesota, as well as the vehicles being registered in North Dakota, named insureds at a North Dakota address, and North Dakota corporations paying the premiums.21 Applying the factors, predictability of result favors North Dakota law because the policy was based on North Dakota rates and covered North Dakota titled vehicles and corporations.22 Maintenance of interstate order also favors North Dakota to prevent forum shopping, as evidenced by Jepson previously litigating in North Dakota for no-fault benefits under North Dakota law.23
Simplification of the judicial task is neutral.24 Minnesota's governmental interest in compensating tort victims is outweighed by the other factors.25 The better rule of law factor does not influence the choice because neither stacking nor anti-stacking is clearly better.26
North Dakota law governs the resolution of this underinsured motorist coverage dispute.27
Whether, if Minnesota law applies, the number of insured vehicles on which underinsured motorist benefits may be stacked?28
When the choice of law analysis results in the application of a state's law that enforces anti-stacking provisions, the question of how many vehicles may be stacked becomes moot.29
No. The choice of law analysis leads to the application of North Dakota law, which enforces the anti-stacking provisions in the policy.30 The policy covers seven vehicles but the stacking question is not reached. As a result, the issue of stacking the benefits on the seven vehicles is moot under North Dakota law.31
The question of how many vehicles may be stacked is moot.32