Courts Use Choice-of-Law Analysis to Avoid Denying Coverage
The Pitzer and Pfizer court decisions illustrate why insurers should include clear choice-of-law provisions in policies.
Recently, California and Delaware courts have applied choice-of-law analyses to coverage disputes seemingly to avoid denials of coverage. In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., the California Supreme Court held a choice-of-law provision was potentially unenforceable because it violated “fundamental public policy.” In Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co. the Delaware Superior Court held Delaware law applied to insurance contracts that did not contain choice-of-law provisions, even though New York law arguably applied.
This premium content is locked for
Insurance Coverage Law Center subscribers only.
Start a free trial to enjoy unlimited access to the single source of objective legal analysis, practical insights, and news for the insurance industry.
- Access the most current expert analysis and daily developments across jurisdictions
- Solve complex research issues with expert tools and intelligence
- Tap into insurance coverage expert guidance
Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.