American National Insurance Co. v. Conestoga Settlement Trust, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8198

ANICO, the insurer, denied payment on a $10 million policy insuring Rachel Einhorn and was sued by Conestoga Settlement Trust.
Conestoga acquired the policy rights via assignments and sought payment after Einhorn's death in 2011, alleging STOLI fraud.
ANICO sought a Texas Rule of Evidence 202 choice-of-law determination; the trial court applied New York law.
ANICO pursued a permissive appeal arguing New Jersey law should apply or that the choice-of-law ruling was premature.
Key issues resolved revolve around whether New York law governs post-contestability validity challenges and the applicable Restatement analysis.
The Texas court ultimately affirmed applying New York law to issues of policy validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which state's law governs policy validity post-contestability?	ANICO argues New Jersey law should govern.	Conestoga argues New York law should govern.	New York law applies.
Is the choice-of-law analysis premature if New Jersey law might apply?	ANICO claims remand for full Restatement analysis is needed.	Conestoga contends existing analysis suffices.	Prematurity argument rejected; analysis completed.

New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Caruso, 73 N.Y.2d 74 (1989) (insurable interest challenge post-contestability declined in New York)
Ledley v. William Penn Life Ins. Co., 138 N.J.627 (1995) (New Jersey allows fraud-based denial after contestability period)
Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1984) (conflict-of-laws analysis using Restatement most significant relationship)
Daccach v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 217 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2007) ( outlines Restatement Section 6(2) approach in conflicts of law)