337 P.3d 1148
Wyo.2014Background
- On Feb. 28, 2009, two Wyoming residents (Sister and Brother) were in a single-vehicle accident on I-90 in Sweet Grass County, Montana; Sister alleges Brother’s negligent driving caused her injuries.
- Sister filed a negligence suit in Wyoming on Feb. 27, 2013 (almost four years after the accident).
- Wyoming’s statute of limitations for personal injury is four years; Montana’s is three years.
- Brother moved for summary judgment, arguing Wyoming’s borrowing statute requires applying the law of the place where the cause arose (Montana), so Montana’s 3-year limit barred the suit.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the cause arose in Montana and Montana’s 3-year limitations period barred the claim.
- Sister appealed, arguing (1) that applying Montana’s limitations should carry Montana’s choice-of-law rules (which would refer back to Wyoming), and (2) that Wyoming should adopt an interest analysis and conclude the cause arose in Wyoming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wyoming’s borrowing statute requires applying Montana’s statute of limitations | Boutelle (Sister): Montana’s limitations shouldn’t control because Montana choice-of-law rules would point back to Wyoming | Brother: Borrowing statute applies; cause arose in Montana so Montana’s 3-year limit controls | Borrowing statute applies; cause arose in Montana; Montana’s 3-year bar governs |
| Whether a Wyoming court must apply the foreign forum’s choice-of-law (renvoi) when borrowing its limitations | Boutelle: Yes — when borrowing Montana’s limitations, apply Montana conflict rules, which would refer back to Wyoming | Brother: No — applying foreign choice rules would undermine Wyoming’s legislative choice and create circularity | Court rejects renvoi; do not apply foreign choice-of-law rules when borrowing |
| Whether Wyoming should adopt a Restatement (Second) interest analysis to decide where the cause arose | Boutelle: Use interest analysis; Wyoming has the more significant interest so cause arose in Wyoming | Brother: Existing lex loci delicti rule governs; cause arose where negligence occurred (Montana) | Court declines to adopt interest analysis; applies traditional rule — cause arose where negligent act occurred (Montana) |
| Whether Sister’s claim is timely under the applicable law | Boutelle: Claim timely if Wyoming law applies | Brother: Claim time-barred under Montana’s 3-year statute | Held: Claim barred under Montana’s 3-year statute of limitations; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duke v. Housen, 589 P.2d 334 (Wyo. 1979) (establishes operation and purpose of Wyoming’s borrowing statute)
- Bekkedahl v. McKittrick, 58 P.3d 175 (Mont. 2002) (Montana rule that negligence cause of action accrues when negligent act occurs)
- Inman v. Boykin, 330 P.3d 275 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment and statute-of-limitations questions)
- Act I, LLC v. Davis, 60 P.3d 145 (Wyo. 2002) (describes Restatement/Second Restatement conflicts approach and necessity of an actual conflict before applying it)
- Jack v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 899 P.2d 891 (Wyo. 1995) (lex loci delicti principle — substantive law of place of wrong governs tort issues)
- Cross v. Berg Lumber Co., 7 P.3d 922 (Wyo. 2000) (Wyoming rule on when a cause of action accrues)