From the desk of Kyle Riley: When determining which states’ substantive laws to apply, will differing statutes of limitations between two states create a conflict of law?
Claims Pointer: The Washington Supreme Court concluded that different statutes of limitations between Washington and Idaho will not support an actual conflict of law. After reviewing the relevant laws of each state, the Court determined that the outcome of Woodward’s negligence claim in either state would be the same, namely Taylor being liable to Woodward. The Court held that different statutes of limitations in two different states do not establish a conflict of law and further rejected the proposition that the law of the state where the accident occurred presumptively applied.
Woodward v. Taylor, No. 91270-0 (January 14, 2016).
Ava Taylor was driving a car through Idaho with three passengers, including Claire Woodward. Both Taylor and Woodward were residents of Washington and were on their way back to Washington. The Idaho roadway was slick with ice, and snow was visible on the side of the road. Despite these conditions, Taylor set her cruise control to 82 mph—above the legal speed limit of 75 mph. Taylor lost control of the car, resulting in a rollover accident. Though Woodward was wearing a seatbelt, she suffered significant injuries, including a complex comminuted fracture to her neck.
Woodward filed a negligence suit against Taylor in Washington Superior Court. Woodward alleged that Taylor was negligent in driving too fast for the conditions of the roadway at the time and place of the one-car, roll-over collision. Taylor moved to dismiss, arguing Woodward’s claim was time barred under Idaho’s two year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The trial court agreed with Taylor and dismissed the suit, providing that the negligence action is subject to the law of the state where the accident occurred. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed the dismissal of Woodward’s claim, applying “the most significant relationship test” to determine which substantive law applied. The Court of Appeals held that Idaho’s substantive law and two-year statute of limitations applied.
The Washington Supreme Court granted Woodward’s petition for review and reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that no conflict of law existed between the two states, and, therefore, Washington substantive law and its three-year statute of limitations applied. In reviewing this conflict of law case, the Court held that absent an actual conflict of law, Washington’s substantive law applied and, therefore, Washington’s three-year statute of limitations also applied. The Court applied the following analytical framework in determining which state’s law applied: (1) identify an actual conflict of substantive law; (2) if there is an actual conflict of law, apply “the most significant relationship test” to determine which state’s substantive law applies to the case, or, if there is no actual conflict, apply the presumptive law of the forum; (3) then, if applicable, apply the chosen substantive law’s statute of limitations.
The Court based its analysis on the first prong, namely whether there was an actual conflict of substantive law. According to the Court, “An actual conflict of law exists where the result of an issue is different under the laws of the interested states.” In this discussion, the Court rejected consideration of two different states’ statutes of limitations in making a choice of applicable law. Therefore, a difference between two states’ statutes of limitations may not be the basis for finding an actual conflict of law. Rather, a court determines the applicable statute of limitations after the other factors are determined. The Court, in deciding that no actual conflict of substantive law existed, reviewed Plaintiff’s negligence claim against relevant Washington and Idaho laws. According to the Court, no actual conflict existed between
Washington and Idaho negligence law because both states apply the same standard of care. Furthermore, both states prohibit driving above the speed limit and require drivers to slowdown in response to adverse road conditions. Therefore, the outcome of whether Taylor was driving negligently would be the same in both states. Absent differing outcomes, there is no actual conflict between Washington and Idaho negligence laws. Taylor introduced a number of arguments in support of her contention that a conflict of law existed between Washington and Idaho, including differing speed limits between the two states and conflicting comparative fault laws. She also reiterated the importance of the location of the accident, and minimized the other factors of “the most significant relationship test.” The Court rejected Taylor’s arguments. In terms of the different speed limits, the Court found no actual conflict as both Washington and Idaho prohibit driving above the state’s maximum speed limit and driving too fast when confronted with hazardous road conditions. Furthermore, the result of Woodward’s claim would not be different as Woodward does not allege speeding above the statutory limit as the basis for Taylor’s negligence; rather Woodward’s allegation is that Taylor was driving too fast for the icy conditions. Therefore, Taylor’s excessive speed merely shows the degree of her negligent driving and is not the determining factor in whether she was negligent.
The Court also indicated that Taylor overemphasized the importance of the location of the accident, rejecting the proposition that the law of the state where an accident occurred presumptively applied. As to her argument that both states had conflicting comparative fault laws, the Court discussed the differences between the two laws, but ultimately found that there was no conflict where the outcome as to Taylor’s negligence would be the same. In other words, while the laws differed, the result was the same, namely Taylor being liable to Woodward.
The Court concluded that because no actual conflict of law exists between Washington and Idaho’s negligence laws, the Court need not reach “the most significant relationship test,” and instead applied Washington’s substantive law as the forum state. However, the Court acknowledged that if they had reached “the most significant relationship test,” Woodward would have a strong argument that Washington’s substantive law applied to her claim. Because no actual conflict exists, Washington’s substantive law and, therefore, its three-year statute of limitations applied.
The Court of Appeals’ ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Case updates are intended to inform our clients and others about legal matters of current interest. They are not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this article without seeking professional counsel.