Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 987 P.2d 768

Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

987 P.2d 768

Ariz. Ct. App.

1999

Check Treatment

*1 ¶20 ing declaratory judgment judgment a under section 41- of the trial court is 1034. See 902 P.2d at 1367. affirmed. may

Because we hold that Plaintiffs not seek declaratory judgment under section 41- CONCURRING: SHELDON H. criteria, validity WEISBERG, on of the clinical Presiding Judge, and KLEINSCHMIDT, their reliance on Southwest Ambulance is Judge. THOMAS C. unavailing. that Plaintiffs’ claims the clinical arbitrary

criteria capricious are and ex- statutory authority

ceed AHCCCS’s chal-

lenge arising pursuant matters to AHCCCS’s

implementing subject statutes and thus are statutory grievance proce-

to AHCCCS’s 36-2903.01(B)(4) (Supp. dures. See A.R.S. 987 P.2d 768 1996) (amended 1998). Plaintiffs must ex- Beckler, Charles BECKLER and Linda grievance process haust the administrative wife; Beckler, husband and Matthew complaint bringing before their to the court. single person, Plaintiffs-Appellees, argue preemptively 17 Plaintiffs proceeding that before the AHCCCS Admin FARM STATE MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE istration would be futile because AHCCCS COMPANY, an INSURANCE Illinois pecuniary has a in the outcome of corporation, Defendant-Appellant. process. case that denies Plaintiffs due No. 1 97-0364. CA-CV argue Plaintiffs the trial court should not have dismissed the case at the Arizona, Appeals Court of pleadings stage, but should have allowed 1, Department A. Division develop support them to a factual record to April argument grievance their that AHCCCS’s procedure process. violates due Review Denied Oct. subject 18 Plaintiffs’ claims are still grievance appeal process. Allowing

parties to build a factual record one of

policies underlying requirement par- remedy agency

ties first seek a from the judicial seeking

before review. See Farmers Dep’t,

Inv. v.Co. Arizona State Land 369, 373, (App.1982).

Ariz. 666 P.2d may

Plaintiffs build that record before the

agency. allege pursu 19 Plaintiffs also remedy agency with the would be futile dug in “already

because has AHCCCS vague allegation futility

heels.” Such party

an insufficient basis on which to allow a bypass requirement. the exhaustion See County,

Minor v. Cochise (1980) (rejecting argument

that exhaustion would be futile when there “nothing in the record which would indi

cate that [administrative board] appellants’ po seriously

not have considered

sition”).

Jones, Hochuli W. Skelton & Ronald Collett, Phoenix, Lewis, Attorneys David C. Defendant-Appellant. for Phoenix, Giles, Attorney Esq., Bruce for A. Plaintiffs-Appellees.

OPINION PATTERSON, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 In- State Farm Mutual Automobile (State Farm) Company and its in- surance (the Becklers) sureds filed cross-motions summary judgment regarding whether Ne- applied stacking braska or Arizona law coverage. uninsured motorist permit stipulated that Arizona law would not. The while Nebraska Arizona law trial court ruled that appealed. FACTS facts; dispute do not there fore, our review is a de novo review of the ¶ 2 Plaintiffs Charles and Linda Beclder application trial court’s of the law. Gonzalez purchased automobile multiple insurance on Satrustegui, vehicles from State Farm. Each vehicle was (App.1993); Ford, Bill Alexander *3 by covered separate policy. insurance At Ford, Inc., Mercury, Lincoln Inc. v. Casa issue policy is the insurance covering a 1984 616, 618, 187 Ariz. 931 P.2d (App. Jeep Although Cherokee. the Beeklers lived 1996) (choice novo). of law is reviewed de purchased Nebraska and the insurance Nebraska, policy son, Matthew, their Stipulation B. The Parties’ brought Jeep him with to Arizona where ¶7 State Farm first asks us to re college. he attended Charles and Linda lieve it parties’ stipulation concerning Beckler were by the named insureds and law, alleging and Arizona that policy terms of the Matthew was an “addi- Farm State made a mistake of law. State tional policy. insured” covered Farm asserts entering when into the agent Beeklers’ State Farm understood that stipulation, mistakenly it relied on State Matthew and inbe Arizona Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. during year. the school Lindsey, (1995). 182 Ariz. 897 P.2d 631 April 1995, In walking Matthew was Lindsey, In Supreme the Arizona ad Court Phoenix, through parking Arizona, lot specific clause, dressed a Farm State re severely injured when he was struck clause, ferred to as the “other vehicle” an uninsured Arizona motorist. State Farm sufficiently stated that the clause was not $25,000 paid Matthew pursuant to the Beck- specific prevent stacking poli of insurance lers’ uninsured coverage motorist on another cies under Arizona law. Id. at 897 P.2d Thereafter, vehicle.1 sought Matthew an ad- However, asserts that $25,000 payment ditional pursuant recent Division changed Two ease the law coverage uninsured motorist Jeep. on the stacking with this case. See ¶ 4 policy The insurance on the did Voss, Farmers Ins. v.Co. not contain a provision. choice of law Voss, (App.1996). P.2d 875 In the court re parties stipulated stacking that would be al- policy provided viewed a clause that lowed if Arizona applied but not if Ne- payable total policies amount under all could applied. braska law In cross-motions for provided by single policy not exceed limits summary judgment, the Beeklers asserted highest liability limits. apply. that Arizona law should State Farm 935 P.2d at 876. The Foss court held this countered that Nebraska apply. law should prevent stacking clause was sufficient to un granted The trial summary judgment court der Jeep policy Arizona law. Id. The con for the appeals. Beeklers and Farm State provision tained a similar to the one reviewed in the Foss case. jurisdiction pursuant 5 We have to Ari- (A.R.S.) zona Revised Statutes Annotated ¶ 8 We do not relieve State Farm of the 12-2101(B). sections 12-120.21 and stipulation First, for several reasons. we do agree

not with its characterization of this as Second, a mistake of law. the Voss decision DISCUSSION was issued several months before State A. Standard of Review summary judgment, filed its motion for may grant summary yet 6 The trial court present State Farm did not the Voss judgment dispute when material exists stipulation decision or seek relief from the judgment Third, and the movant is entitled to as a trial from the court. the State Farm Reeves, matter of law. language Orme Sch. v. not contain does identical to 301, 309, (1990). Voss; thus, Ariz. 802 P.2d that reviewed in it is not conclu- $25,000/$50,000 coverage. 1. The limits of torist policies all of the Beeklers’ with uninsured mo- ar- company denied interpretation would be the that sive law, the underin- guing under Texas Finally, Farm could have as same. “reduced time, motorist serted, sured any language in its or recoverable from amount recovered prevented whether or not the motor vehicle.” insurer of the underinsured to review decision existed. We decline Voss Ann. 5.06- (quoting Tex. art. Id. Ins.Code court appellate an does these issues because 1(5)). plaintiff was under Texas presented for the first issues not address “recov- Perkinson, because she not entitled MacCollum v. appeal. time on policy lim- ered than her underinsured more (App. Id. driver of the other vehicle.” 1996). its from the ap- argued Plaintiff Arizona should Choice of Law permit C. ply and that law does *4 argued further type of offset. Id. She ¶ argues 9 Farm that Division State prin- in accident the vehicle involved was Employees in Government In- Two’s decision Arizona, in had cipally garaged since she Fenton, 440, Ariz. 793 surance Co. v. 164 Although day Arizona before. moved to controlling. In (App.1989), 1107 Fen- P.2d fact, disputed court plaintiffs move was ton, held that Arizona’s under- Division Two purposes claim presumed the true applicability no insured motorist statute had review. Id. Texas, in a Texas resi- policy to a issued to dent, covering registered prin- and a vehicle V12 Fenton held that Texas The court 442, Id. at cipally garaged in Texas. 793 Arizona’s law because under/unin- 1107, at P.2d 793 P.2d 1109. State Farm application limits sured motorist statute argues further that even if Fenton is not or in policies “delivered issued” statute controlling, apply law under Nebraska should registered “principal- for vehicles Arizona (Second) of Conflict Laws Restatement Further, ly garaged” in Id. Arizona. (1971) (Restatement). 193 Becklers Texas Fenton court found that law should argue both under Fenton the Re- apply policy was issued for a because 193, apply statement Arizona law should registered vehicle that was Texas parties because the understood to be Id. lan- principally garaged in Texas. principal location of the insured risk. policies guage limiting applicability to issued since delet- or delivered Arizona has been 1. Fenton ed from statute. A.R.S. 20-259.01 See ¶ (1995). Therefore, find Fenton distin- alleges 10 trial we State Instead, guishable.2 apply it court when determined that Arizona we erred § applied, arguing law that Fenton is control- authority. argue

ling The Becklers 2. Restatement supports persuasive, Fenton but it their position, not State Farm’s. ¶ In the of a absence choice

¶ Fenton, plaintiff provision, own of law 11 In and her hus- law we our choice to apply rules band were involved an auto accident to determine which Tucson, insur at 793 P.2d substantive issues such as Arizona. Ariz. Holdings, v. They were in ance. Lane a car owned See Cardon Cotton Inc., not insured defendant. Id. plaintiff, but (1992) (issue deficiency 440-41, relating at

at 793 P.2d 1107-08. Plaintiff and, therefore, against judgment substantive de her claim the driver of the was settled law). choice of See other vehicle. termined Arizona’s Co., Liberty Mut. Ins. sought then under also Frost She additional (1992) (stacking of uninsured on the S.W.2d her underinsured motorist issue). a substantive Texas. Id. motorist uninvolved car which remained Jeep policy dele- argument, renewal of the came after the 2. At oral counsel for Farm con- language A.R.S. ceded that the revised version of section section tion in A.R.S. 20-259.01. apply to 20-259.01 could this matter because Jeep policy express provi- “principal Jeep, contains no location” of the “insured law; therefore, 4Further, sion governing they for the Ari- risk.”3 assert that all apply. zona’s agreement choice of law rules understood that Arizona be the location of the insured ¶ argues ig- The dissent that we have risk. nored the choice of law issues raised and the making quantum settled leaps while 18 State Farm counters that even if we apparently achieve result-oriented determi- apply § applies Nebraska because of upon nations. relying Rhody While v. State significant relationship” the “more exception. Farm Mutual argues Insurance F.2d 1416 State Farm that Nebraska is where (10th Cir.1985), the issued, dissent overlooks the dis- sold and live, Rhody. tinction between our matter and See where the and where the Beck- op. at 42. agent lers’ State Farm does business. Therefore, contacts, considering all ¶ 15 In Rhody, an Oklahoma statute re- has the significant relationship.” “more quired anti-stacking provi- the use of Texas’ sion because the insurance contained argues 19 State Farm further that vir provision. choice of law The court found tually applying § all of the cases 193 have applica- Oklahoma statute restricts applied the law of the tion of principles, stating: choice of law “Ab- was issued and where the named insureds *5 any sent specific such manifestation of intent However, resided. Farm point fails to by to be particular bound the laws of a cases, out in those location jurisdiction, place of the law the where the generally of the insured risk was the same as contract governs interpretation was made policy was issued or where the the contract.” 771 F.2d at 1420. See, We have primarily e.g., insureds resided. Walker no similar in statutory provision Co., Arizona re- v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 973 F.2d stricting law (8th Cir.1992) (insureds our choice of rules. 634, 636-37 residents of, at, garaged policy ear and issued in Kan ¶ 16 follows the Arizona Restate sas); Boardman v. United Servs. Auto. Cardon, ment for law. its choice of Ass’n, (Miss.1985) (in 470 1033 So.2d at 841 P.2d at 202. start We with a of, at, garaged poli sureds residents car and § review of 193: Nebraska); cy in issued State Farm Mut. Fire, Surety Casualty Contracts of or In- Conyers, Ins. Co. v. 109 N.M. surance (1989) (car garaged policy 990 at and fire, validity surety The of a contract Mexico); issued in New McAllaster v. Bru casualty rights and the insurance created ton, (D.Me.1987) 1371, 1373 F.Supp. (pol thereby are determined the local law of icy garaged issued and vehicle in Connecti the state which the understood was cut); Family Hartzler v. American Mut. to be the principal location the insured Co., Ins. (Mo.Ct.App. 881 S.W.2d during policy, risk the term the unless 1994) (insureds of, at, garaged car residents particular issue, with to the some Kansas); policy and in issued Adkins significant other state has a more relation- Sperry, 190 437 S.E.2d W.Va. ship § principles under the stated in 6 to (1993) (Ohio application, insurance in parties, the transaction in and which of, registered, and car li sureds residents event the local law the other state will Ohio). censed, Thus, garaged those applied. be distinguishable. cases are added). (emphasis § Restatement insists that 20 The dissent Restatement misinterpreted misap- 17 The assert that Ari 193 has been Becklers applies plied by majority. zona law here because was the dissent cites Shapiro 3. The See Int’l Ins. Becklers or State could have chosen v. Associated 899 F.2d Cir.1990) (11th (holding multiple to insure all of the vehicles under one that when Therefore, multiple policy risk the "insured risk covered insureds in numer- but did not. locations, signif- of the aggregate risk" was not ous "location risk has less vehicles but icance") b). specific (quoting 193 cmt. vehicle insured at issue. Restatement during it at be is “in the state where will that “the mere proposition for the Boardman an insured major peri an insured vehicle or of portion location of least the Op. applies.” law McAllaster, does not determine what F.Supp. at also od.” See ¶43. However, the court Boardman (location under auto of insured risk presented here be- never reached the issue princi automobile will policy is where the issue cover- it determined cause risk” is the pally garaged). The “insured any of location age preliminary to issue was policy.4 under the See automobile covered (the at 1033-34 court of risk. 470 So.2d (insured emt. b risk however, stated, superseding that absent the activity subject object or which is the “the issue, argu- coverage there is force insurance”); McAllaster, 655 matter of the apply under Mississippi law should ment that 990; 1373; Conyers, P.2d at F.Supp. at 193). Thus, that Nebraska it concluded 636; Adkins, Walker, 973 F.2d at S.E.2d determine whether the insured’s law should require does not at 288. policy. Id. son in fact covered under the in the accident insured vehicle to be involved be acti for uninsured motorist presented are not with cover- 21 We initiated can vated. presented age here. are issue We recognize that or other insured. named We pure parties stipu- choice law issue. The particular instance the was not applies, stacking if lated that Arizona However, the existence of involved. without permitted, applies, if whereas Nebraska Thus, permitted. policy, is not Boardman the uninsured motorist automobile1 inapposite to the case at hand. exist. The Restatement would not provides that is the insured the automobile ¶22 Walker, The dissent also cites policy. risk in an automobile insurance law to which the court Kansas resi- the principal who were involved in an we must look to location dents Kansas Op. in Iowa. at n.12. The court automobile, accident not Matthew. *6 applied significant Walker the more relation- ¶ Here, principal Arizona the loca- and, ship urging, test on State Farm’s also parties tion of the insured risk. The under- principal the location of the risk test. attending would be stood that Matthew 973 F.2d at 636. The court stated it was at least nine months out of school Arizona “persuaded by facts the the that Walkers be him year residents of Kansas dealt a the and that the would with were agent to purchase Therefore, Kansas their is during those months. Arizona garaged Id. vehicles in Kansas.” at 637 place parties the that the understood to be added). However, (emphasis Walker is fac- of insured principal the location the risk. tually distinguishable. analysis used ¶ §in general rule set forth 193 is the court is consistent with Restate- Walker weight determining given great to be §ment which we to the matter at choice of issues. The comments state: hand. principal is the risk’s location most “[T]he authority point, Ari- 23 We found on important to be considered in the contact otherwise; therefore, zona or we reviewed applicable the choice of law.” Restatement § language the of 193 and the comments Also, provide: § b. the 193 cmt. comments thereto. given insured risk will be “The location the Principal a. Location Insured any single greater weight than con- other

Risk Id. ra- tact....” Comment c discusses the placing greater weight tionale for on provides § b Comment “[tjhis location has an principal that the location of the insured risk location of risk: risk,” the "insured which is the 4. dissent states that location the vehi- tates Therefore, virtually Jeep, UM cov- Jeep. "[t]he cle is erage purchased by irrelevant because or other without some parents risk,” not Matthew’s did Matthew would not have UM “insured Cherokee, depend his UM on use of as "in- at ail. location protects person” anywhere. Op. coverage ¶ at extremely relevant here. sured risk” However, of Matthew necessi- bearing intimate upon the risk’s underwriting important nature and and is mentioned upon However, extent factor which the terms comment c the Re and conditions of the will frequently suggest statement does not that underwrit depend.” Further, “the location of the risk criteria weighed is a factor to be sepa parties is matter of intense rately concern only but advises that it is one of the ... and the state where the insured justifications risk will weight placed for the on the principally during be located the term of the location of the risk. Restatement 193 cmt. policy has a natural interest the determi- suggests c. The Restatement that the insurer nation of issues under arising the insurance premium will set the based on the rates contract.” Restatement 193 cmt. c. the location kept. where the automobile is asserts it allowed in ¶27 parties’ Our review of the under- sured enjoy the lower Nebraska rates. standing supports our conclusion that Ari- However, option Farm had the to set principal zona was the location of the insured premium on based Arizona under provides: risk. Comment d to writing standards and failed to do so.5 Fur [Application of the law of local the other ther, presented it no evidence as to un hardly unfair to the insur- derwriting premium or standards rates of company, ance least with State Farm in Nebraska and as issues, company some if the had reason to such argument we consider to be foresee when it issued the that there Rabb, waived. Smith v. might be a shift to another state of the (1963). Therefore, we conclude principal location of the risk. parties understood Arizona to be the Further, “[Ip provides: comment b the case principal location the insured risk. an liability policy, automobile usually will know beforehand where the auto b. Section 6 factors will garaged during mobile at least most analysis does Our not end with period question.” Finally, other determining understood emphasized courts have the fact that Arizona to be the location of the company msurance princi did know the requires insured risk. Section us to pal location of risk changed. the insured had determine that does not have See, e.g., Conyers, (“The 784 P.2d at 991 “significant relationship” more par- Conyers record does not reveal that ever determining ties and the In transaction. Nevada.”); agent] informed [their of their move to *7 whether significant Nebraska has more Baybutt Corp. on str. v. Commercial C transaction, relationship to this we review Co., 914, (Me.1983) Ins. 455 919 Union A.2d § the factors outlined in 6 of the Restate- (“the merely implied rule reflects the intent ment. These are: factors contract”). Here, parties the of the (a) the needs of interstate and the interna- dispute do not that State knew systems, tional garaged would be in Arizona for (b) forum, policies the relevant of the year. of the most (c) policies the relevant of other interested ¶ argues 28 State Farm that it un states and the relative interests of those derstood Nebraska to the location be states in particu- the determination of the paying risk because the Becklers were lower issue, lar premiums on the policy. State Farm (d) justified protection expectations, paying asserts were “rock- Becklers (e) policies underlying partic- bottom” msurance rates based on the under the basic writing criteria of Nebraska. It asserts that ular field of premium coverages 5. Clause six of the "Conditions” section of the and based on rates Jeep policy pertains "Change applicable to Residence” in the new location. When the provides: change and from one state to location is another policy replace ... we shall with the When we receive notice location of principal currently garag- garaging form in the new state of of the vehicle ... been use has changed, right ing. to we have the recalculate the

289 s (f) underlying each state insurance uniformity predictability and certainty, 6(2). § has a Restatement result, laws. and Arizona law. strong applying applica- (g) in the determination ease motorist purpose for uninsured Arizona’s applied. to tion of the law be un to its citizens from legislation protect is § 6. financially damages caused compensated ¶30 relationship significant The v. State Evenchik irresponsible drivers. quantitative. qualitative rather than test is Co., 679 Farm Ins. Ct., 46, 49, Superior v. See Bates behind 99, 104 public policy (App.1984). (1988) signifi 1367, (applying under which a limiting circumstances relationship under Restatement cant test stacking is reduce the allow to can 145). Thus, merely listing § the number Arizona customers. Jef to cost is In with each insufficient.6 contacts Lind Note, Farm v. Guldner, frey B. case, § to this we find applying the 6 factors on Arizona’s Anti-Stack sey: Limits What signifi not have a more that Nebraska does Statute?, 265, ing 27 Ariz. St. L.J. relationship.7 cant (1995). However, legislature did not Id. d, prohibit completely. which relates 31 Comment provides anti-stacking stat systems, language of Arizona’s of the interstate needs mandatory; permissive there to further harmonious is and not a court “should seek ute in fore, anti-stacking must be provision facilitate between states and to relations policy. Lindsey, 182 Ariz. at Ap- intercourse between them.” cluded in the commercial not, hamper it is stack law not harmoni- 897 P.2d at 633. When plying Arizona will Id. 897 P.2d at ing permitted. Nebraska and Arizona. will ous relations between application If State Farm wishes assure policies Nebras- law to written in permits stacking in cer- 33 Arizona

ka, provision it can include choice of circumstances and Nebraska does tain policies. Compare A.R.S. permit stacking at all. § with Neb.Rev.Stat. § § 44-6410 review the rele- 20-259.01 Under we must whole, as (Supp.1996). find taken policies vant in Arizona and Nebraska and We Bryant part disagree principle argument above from 6. We with State Farm's analysis we contacts listed in Restate must consider the that the court used determin- overall § 188 for ment 188. Most cases that look ing weight particular consid- factors determining guidance only after that no do so Id. at in choice of law matters. ered 145(2). location of insured risk exists under P.2d at 1194. See also Restatement 656; Hartzler, See, e.g., S.W.2d at (1) inju- The factors include: the state States American Fam. Assur. Co. United occurs, (2) ry Life where conduct caus- the state Co., (11th Cir.1989); Fire Boardman, F.2d occurs, (3) injury the domicil/residence ("This a matter 470 So.2d at 1034 (4) parties, state in which the rela- risk.”). having little to do with the location of the tionship centered. between F.Supp. Hughes But see Smith v. Aircraft 145(2) 703 P.2d 1190. Restatement 44— further states that (D.Ariz.1991), 22 F.3d aff'd "[tjhese are to be contacts (9th Cir.1993) part, part (principal loca rev'd in *8 according importance to their relative evaluated uncontroverted). of risk is Other courts tion particular to the issue.” specifically ignore re the existence of a section arising Bryant wrongful death suit involved (§ 193) apply lating to contracts and thorough airplane A review of out of an crash. See, e.g., § Co., § v. Ins. 188. O’Rourke Colonial Bryant that the foremost consideration reveals 1993); (Miss. Mountain 624 So.2d determining which had for the court was Supply v. Ins. 933 F.2d Fuel Reliance significant relationship to the matter the more Cir.1991). (10th Thus, § court in under 6 of the Restatement. light Bryant weighed of the each contact “in “[t]oday’s opinion au- The dissent states case,” to of this determine which issues and facts stacking coverages right in the face of thorizes contacts, qualita- significant state had the more governs the offer and issuance Nebraska law tively. P.2d supreme notwithstanding coverages, 44— our dissent, Here, we that Ari- Silverman, unlike the conclude Bryant in court’s clear indication significant relationship with (1985), the most zona has that Arizona light of this in of the issues and facts compensation this matter of non- has little or no interest in plaintiffs.” Op. case. at V39. resident provides greater Arizona’s law protection Finally, under we must look to than does Nebraska law for unin- victims of uniformity of the in result and the ease they sured motorists be residents or not.8 application. 6(2)(f) (g). Restatement and Applying Arizona law will further Arizona’s simple Choice law rules should be in providing greater recovery interest for easy apply. Based on the interests in- strong Matthew. Arizona has a in volved, we find that Arizona’s law should having applied equally its law and for that apply. provides This result for at least the purpose.9 in prohibiting Nebraska’s interest same in application ease as would Nebraska’s stacking outweigh does Arizona’s interest Further, applying laws. Arizona law is rea- compensating in victims accidents oc- uniformity. sonable and in results curring within Although Arizona’s borders. Considering weight given most of the Beeklers’ insured vehicles were risk, location of ap- we find it Nebraska, located in only policy before propriate apply Arizona law. We do not Jeep principally us concerns the that was find that Nebraska’s concerns and interests in located Arizona. are sufficient exception to invoke the addition, 34 In Arizona has an interest reasons, cited the dissent. For these we recovery providing in for those individuals affirm. physically who within reside its borders. Al- ¶38 State requests attorneys’ Farm its though may Matthew in domiciled Ne- 12-331, fees and costs under A.R.S. sections braska, he during resided 341.01(A). prevailing State Farm is not the year school year. three-fourths party therefore, appeal; request on Thus, provide we find no reason not to Mat- denied. Id. protection thew with the same any as other person residing in Arizona. RYAN, CONCURRING: D. MICHAEL ¶ 35 requires pro- Section also that we Judge. parties’ justified expectations.

tect Re- 6(2)(d). Here, statement parties in- THOMPSON, Judge, dissenting. agent Jeep formed the to be ¶ 39 Matthew BecMer is a Nebraska resi- emphasizes impor- located. injured walMng dent while from Phoenix tance Nebraska as the state where the night injuries club. His are covered under Jeep policy Although was issued. Matthew parents’ his Nebraska automobile insurance parents, was domiciled Nebraska with his only insureds,” parents because he lives with his the “named at the time Nebraska. The insurance at issue primarily accident Matthew resided in Ari- case, coverage, uninsured motorist was se- primary zona and was the driver of the in- mother, lected in Thus, Matthew’s anticipat- sured vehicle. if BecMer, Linda on a form any ed that entitled “Nebraska claim would be made on the policy, they likely Uninsured and anticipated that Underinsured Motor Vehicle it would Here, Coverages” originate in which described Nebraska law Arizona. regarding majori- coverages. UM and UIM knew Matthew would be Arizona a Nebras- ty required time ka Jeep. with the find State Farm to offer at we least $25,000/$50,000 parties’ justified coverage, expectations were in UM but disal- stacking coverages that Arizona law on lowed would of UM on different policy. policies. Today’s opinion vehicles autho- suggests e stipulated 8. Comment have under Arizona frequently policy’s an insurance of law choice permitted. We have al- provision given *9 is not effect if it chooses the ready by stipu- concluded that we bound the are gives protection less to the insured the than provides greater lation. law Arizona’s chance applicable otherwise law. Restatement 193 recovery. public policy for this It is to which we Bryant, cmt. e. See also at Ariz. whether, regardless stipula- look of absent the Restatement, (following analyzed at 1195 court tion, stacking permitted be in this case wrong- which state had the dominant interest in under Arizona law. policies ful death action and noted states’ for fully compensating plaintiffs). injured he is porch swing,” “no matter where right in front coverages the face stacking rizes of Employers doing.” Mut. governs offer and ... or what he is law that the of Nebraska McKeon, coverages, notwithstanding of the issuance Cas. Co. (1988). in supreme court’s clear indication was insured our Matthew P.2d Silverman, P.2d Bryant v. 146 Ariz. whether he against uninsured motorists (1985), little or no that Arizona has the Jeep to Arizona or whether drove the compensation of in non-resident Jeep even existed. injured of an plaintiffs. “Compensation ¶41 Concluding there are no cases primarily a concern the state in plaintiff is large body majority ignores point, on the at plaintiff which is domiciled.” Id. the applying law of the state where law the majority here imbues P.2d at 1194. The resided policies issued and the insureds were agility” Matthew with the “not inconsiderable that in the cited purported on the basis eases yet being at once Nebraska resident and by “the location of the only privileges to afforded to Arizo- entitled generally the same as where insured risk was Boardman, n. at 1035 nans. See 470 So.2d where the insureds was issued or (plaintiff could not be “at once both Missis- Majority Opinion at 17. primarily resided.” resident). sippian” Indeed and Nebraska problems with this conclu- There are several majority itself has demonstrated “not sion. agility” supreme taking in inconsiderable First, three cited one cases Bryant protect in to court’s determination controlling, Rhody v. State State Farm as turning gener- it into a Arizona residents and (10th Co., 771 F.2d 1416 Farm Mut. Ins. law where al rule that Arizona will Cir.1985), plaintiff, applied Texas which made helps it best non-residents whatever included, provision coverage, to a happens stacking in front of us. Ma- for UM jority (citing Bryant in Opinion sup- at 31 whose Texas issued to Texas residents Ari- port proposition injured that we should fatally son was in a car wreck in stacking do “will zona’s cases because to so Oklahoma, kept son resided and providing great- in further Arizona’s interest Rhody, In Farm knew that his car. Matthew”). recovery I er dissent. resident, an and that the son was Oklahoma garaged his car would be at his Oklahoma ¶40 Apart from intention to stated legis- Id. at 1417. The Oklahoma residence. helps plaintiff,10 apply whatever law best specifically au- adopted lature had a statute majority exclusively relies almost on thorizing stacking. at 1421. The See id. what it to have been the site of determines applying Tenth Circuit held that Texas “principal garaging” Jeep Cherokee. coverages disallowing was view, my In of the vehicle is location public policy in “inimical to established virtually before irrelevant the issue us. Oklahoma,” leg- notwithstanding Oklahoma’s in was not involved Cherokee stacking, approval islative because Okla- hit, he Matthew was accident. When generally apply laws homa courts do not girl’s walking with some friends to a vehicle foreign protecting con- lot, resident insureds parking point party at which containing provisions. different Id.11 tracts planned girl’s to travel in the vehicle to eat at Quite contrary to Tenth Circuit’s conclu- Denny’s. purchased The UM Rhody, supreme deci- sion and our court’s parents depend on his Matthew’s did not use Cherokee, Bryant pro- sion that it is not our task to see UM as automobile, full measure of “driving get that non-residents person tects a an stroll- residents, sidewalk, compensation to Arizona relaxing down the available plaintiffs. already paid policy compensation non-domiciliary limits 10. Matthew has been State Farm under UM on one of Bryant, at policies, parents' his has bar that (see he sued the majority’s Majority contrary to assertion apparently liquor served drunk driver that ¶¶ 15), Opinion Arizona’s choice of 14— hit him. materially precepts do not differ from those Rhody. operative deemed Bryant similarly our choice of law restricts by abjuring any here interest in determination *10 majority here asserts that Arizona posits application exception has a strong in applying its own law re- “when the contract would be invalid under garding stacking to a non-resident whose local of another with close state home state would not afford him the same to parties.” relation the transaction and the privilege. If in Rhody positive (1971). here, Oklahoma’s Id. at cmt. d This case legislative authorization of stacking was not precluded by where the law sufficiently “prescriptive” public to indicate a Nebraska, clearly State a state with stacking, favor then even less so contract, close relations to the insurance legislative does Arizona’s authorization to in- insureds, resident and the accident itself. companies preclude stacking surance to sug- Compensation primarily for Matthew is Ne gest imperative a policy stacking. allow concern, particularly braska’s since Matthew parents resides his in Nebraska. See ¶43 Second, majority dismisses an- Bryant, 146 Ariz. 703 P.2d 1190. Ne cases, key other12 of State Farm’s Board- anti-stacking provision part braska’s man, involving 470 So.2d as one insurance contract from which Matthew principally Nebraska, vehicle garaged in seeks to benefit and cannot be read out where the was issued and the insured fortuity contract because of Mat majority resided. What fails to note is presence temporary thew’s in Arizona. injured UM insured right Each regulate state has the (a insured) son a named in Boardman was control contracts that enter its residents by Nebraska, determined the law of notwith- into, are part laws of its resi standing in Mississippi that the son was dur- agreements. dents’ contractual See Ameri term, attending entire college can Fed. Labor American Sash & Door working job. and then 20, 29, 39, 189 son had driven an insured vehicle into (1948). Arizona has warrant to alter the Mississippi, and the vehicle was then taken understanding settled of the law of Nebras to Ohio the father. See id. at 1028. ka, pursuant to which this was UM Mississippi’s contacts with the insurance con- by a company, purchased offered tract, college occasioned the son’s attend- resident, a Nebraska and afforded to a employment Mississippi, ance and were member of the same Nebraska household merely deemed “fortuitous.” See id. at 1032. Arizona, temporarily located when the Ne proposition Boardman stands pro braska law and the Nebraska contract an mere location of insured vehicle stacking. hibit an or of insured does what not determine applies. ¶ 45 I would reverse. ¶44 Third, (Second) the Restatement upon Laws section which ma- Conflict of relies,

jority important excep- has an

tion that undermines exclusive reliance on location of the insured risk.

The law of the state risk where,

located will not “with issue, particular some other state has a significant relationship

more ... parties,

transaction and the which event ap-

the local law of the state will be other

plied.” A comment to Iowa, appellees

12. As to the third of dent the three cases State Farm declined even address Walker, principally upon. relies 973 F.2d holding the Walker other than to assert that which Kansas law where the insureds estopped citing it. should from resided in Kansas but were involved in an acci-