Choice of Law

The choice of law rules are determined by the law of the forum. Washington applies the Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws. In Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 145 Wn.2d 137, 149, 34 P.3d 809 (2001) the court in a contract case quoted as follows with approval:

Section 188(2) of the Restatement sets forth five contacts that are to be considered in determining the applicable law:

(a) the place of contracting,

(b) the place of negotiation of the contract,

(c) the place of performance,

(d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and

(e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.

The five "contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue," Restatement § 188(2), and in accord with the general underlying principles set out in section 6(2) of the Restatement:

(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,

(b) the relevant policies of the forum,

(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,

(d) the protection of justified expectations,

(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,

(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and

(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied

In a case involving tort law and a statutory securities fraud claim resembling tort.

"[A] choice of law provision in a contract does not govern tort claims arising out of the contract, [but] it may be considered as an element in the most significant relationship test used in tort cases." Haberman v. Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 159, 744 P.2d 1032 (1988).

Must a difference in State Laws

When parties dispute choice of law, 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. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wash. 2d 93, 100-01, 864 P.2d 937 (1994). When the result of the issues is different under the law of the two states, there is a "real" conflict. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co. v. Lapp, 95 Wash. 2d 341, 344-45, 622 P.2d 850 (1980). The situation where laws or interests of concerned states do not conflict is known as a "false" conflict. Burnside, 123 Wash. 2d at 101. If a false  conflict exists, the presumptive local law is applied. Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 124 Wash. 2d 205, 210, 875 P.2d 1213 (1994).

Seizer v. Sessions, 132 Wn.2d 642, 648 940 P.2d 261 (1997)