Scott Hammersmith v. Tig Insurance Company (w.d. Of Pa. Civil Nos. 02-Cv-01829 & 03-Cv-01333)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reviewing the trial court’s adjudication of a motion for summary judgment determining insurer liability where the issue turned on timely notification
• summarizing Pennsylvania’s two-step choice of law framework and noting that, if no conflict exists between the laws of two jurisdictions, courts may refer to both states’ laws interchangeably
• noting that where there are “no relevant differences between the laws of the two states”—a situation that used to be inaptly referred to as a “false conflict”—a court need not “engage in a choice of law analysis, and may refer to the states’ laws interchangeably”
• describing the history of Pennsylvania choice of law jurisprudence in contract and tort actions
• noting, for the purposes of choice-of-law analysis, that New York has an interest in applying its laws to an insurance policy issued in New York to a New York resident, even though neither party in the action was a New York resident
• “Because the parties only argued the choice-of-law issue with respect to New York and Pennsylvania, we will not consider Texas in our choice-of-law analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).