WINTER VS. NOVARTIS PHARMCEUTICALS CORP.

(2014)

Facts: Ruth Baldwin developed osteonecrosis of the jaw after two of her teeth were extracted. She
alleged that Novartis negligently failed to provide adequate warnings for two drugs she took, Aredia and
Baldwin. Baldwin was awarded $225,000 after trial. Novartis alternatively seeks a new trial, arguing the
district court erred in applying Missouri law to Baldwin's punitive damages claim. Though the jury did
not award punitives, Novartis asserts that the punitive evidence impermissibly tainted the jury's
consideration of liability and compensatory damages. This court reviews de novo the district court's
choice-of-law determination.

Issue: Whether Missouri law applies to the punitive damages claim.

Held: YES. MISSOURI LAW IS APPLICABLE. Under Missouri's choice-of-law rules, courts apply the
substantive law of the state with the "most significant relationship" to the occurrence and the parties.

The following are the considerations:

1. the place where the injury occurred

2. the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred

3. the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties,

4. the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered

Novartis argues that New Jersey has the most significant relationship to the punitive damages claim
because that state is the site of any labeling and marketing misconduct. Moreover, Novartis contends that
Missouri's interest is only to compensate Baldwin, not to impose punitive damages, and these claims are
severable under the Second Restatement's rule of depecage. The district court correctly held that
Missouri has the "most significant relationship" to the punitive damages claim. Missouri is the place where
the injury occurred, making it presumptively the state with the most significant relationship.
FUTURESELECT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT VS. TREMONT GROUP HOLDINGS (2014)

Facts: FutureSelect, a Redmond based financial company, invested nearly $200 million in Tremont's Rye
Funds. It pooled and fed money into Bernie Madoff's fraudulent securities investment scheme. These
investments were lost when Madoff's fraud unraveled. FutureSelect sued Tremont, Oppenheimer
Acquisition Corp. and MassMutual (Tremont's parent companies), and Ernst & Young and Tremont's other
auditors for their failure to conduct due diligence on Madoff's op. FutureSelect alleged violations of the
Washington state securities alterations. The trial court dismissed on the pleadings, finding Washington's
security law did not apply and that Washington courts did not have jurisdiction over Oppenheimer. The
Court of Appeals reversed.

ISSUE: Whether New York Law or Washington Law applies

HELD: WASHINGTON LAW APPLIES. When choice of law is disputed, "there must be an actual conflict
between the laws or interests of Washington and the laws or interests of another state before Washington
courts will engage in a conflict of laws analysis." Washington uses the most significant relationship test as
articulated by Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.

The court concluded that:

1. Washington was the place where FutureSelect acted in reliance on the representations

2. Washington was the place where FutureSelect received the representations

3. Washington and New York were the places where the defendants made the representations

4. Washington and New York were the primary places of business of the parties

5. It cannot be determined either way where FutureSelect was to render performance under the
contract that it had been induced to enter by the false representations of the defendant.

LEX LOCI DELICTI VS. MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP

LEX LOCI DELICTI MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP

Simple, easy to apply, stable, predictable Flexible, fair, judicious

Place of the injury An examination is made on what state has the most
connection