Jennifer H. Rearden, Jefferson E. Bell and Michael Marron ()
In a recent decision, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Uniroyal, C.A. No. N14C-12-210 (Del. March 23), the Delaware Supreme Court considered the “fundamental question” of whether “Delaware courts are required to treat insurance contracts that are part of a broad insurance program as legal documents with meaning that varies substantially based on where each claim happens to arise,” or, alternatively, “whether these contracts should be given a more consistent, predictable meaning in accordance with the expectations of the parties to them at the time they made their bargain.” In an opinion carefully analyzing and applying the Restatement (Second) of Choice of Law’s “most significant relationship framework,” Chief Justice Leo E. Strine wrote for a unanimous court that the latter approach should prevail.
*May exclude premium content
Already have an account? Sign In Now
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org to learn more.