The opinion of the court was delivered by: CONABOY
The Plaintiff owned a property in Pittston, Pennsylvania, covered by a "multi cover" policy of insurance issued by the Defendant. On November 29, 1977 the property was destroyed by fire, and Plaintiff made claims under the insurance policy. Jewelcor carried on various business endeavors through a variety of subsidiaries. It owns many catalogue jewelry showrooms in a number of states, including Pennsylvania. Its Suburban Publishers Division operated a printing plant in Pittston, Pennsylvania, which was the scene of this fire. The parties made their own peace on the damages to the physical property. The policy also included a "blanket earnings and expenses endorsement", which covered what is commonly called "business interruption" loss. Payment under this endorsement stalled and this lawsuit ensued.
Following the filing of the Complaint, the Defendant raised the question of late notice of claim. This in turn raised the question of whether New York law, or Pennsylvania law should apply.
Since this determination is so directional as to the future of this case, counsel properly requested an early determination of this issue. The matter has been fully briefed by both sides, affidavits have been filed, a full day's testimony taken on January 8, 1980, and arguments made to the Court.
However, more recent opinion is that these rules should be changed in favor of a more flexible rule which permits an analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the Court. This approach has been described as more logical because "the merit of such a rule is that "it gives to the place "having the most interest in the problem" paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual context' and thereby alleges the forum to apply the "policy of the jurisdiction "most intimately concerned with the outcome of the particular litigation." " " Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279 (1963).
The Defendant argues that the law of Pennsylvania has not changed in contract matters and that the rule of the "place where the contract was made" should prevail. Citing, principally, Crawford v. Manhattan L. Ins. Co. of N. Y., 208 Pa.Super. 150, 221 A.2d 877 (1966) and Ruhlin v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 106 F.2d 921, (3rd Cir. 1939) and a similar line of holdings, arguing, of course, that the facts show that the contract was made in New York. Plaintiffs argue the law has been changed in Pennsylvania, and that Pennsylvania has adopted a flexible rule applicable to contract cases, which combines an analysis of the "contacts" approach and the "interests and policies" that may be asserted by each jurisdiction. Citing Griffith v. United Airlines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796, (1964) and Melville v. American Home Assur. Co., 584 F.2d 1306, (3rd Cir. 1978) and a similar line of cases. They argue the facts show the latter analysis proves more contacts, and greater interests in the State of Pennsylvania.
Each side however argues stoutly that it should prevail under either analysis.
The Court has fully reviewed the testimony, the briefs, and arguments, and the appropriate authorities, and concludes as did the Melville Court, that the proper approach in Pennsylvania is the Griffith approach which combines "the interests analysis" and "the grouping of contacts."
In using this approach the Court further finds the appropriate law to be applied to this case is the law of the State of Pennsylvania.
We will not attempt nor is there any need for a lengthy thesis on the intriguing and sometimes confusing area known as conflict of laws. That has been amply done in the Restatement and a variety of law review articles and in the many cases cited or referred to by counsel and the court in the Briefs and in this Opinion. Suffice it to say that the road signs have been clearly posted and marked in Pennsylvania, particularly in the Opinion of Justice Roberts writing for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Griffith case, 416 Pa. at 21-22, 203 A.2d 796, and Judge Garth writing for the Third Circuit, in the Melville case, 584 F.2d at 1311. We have abided by and adopted the thinking espoused in those two cases and find that it is appropriate in leading us to the conclusion we have reached in this matter.
It is true that the testimony and the pleadings and evidence in this case indicate that both Plaintiff and Defendant have offices in and do business in a variety of states throughout the Nation. It is not uncommon to find that large corporations doing business in a variety of states will select a mecca such as New York City to have headquarters offices from which much of their negotiations or business contacts are spawned.
Nonetheless, in this case we find from the testimony and the evidence, that while the Plaintiff does in fact have an office in New York City, as does the Defendant, and while much of the negotiations for this contract did in fact take place in New York, we find also that the Plaintiff Corporations has not only offices, but a substantial business enterprise in Pittston, Pennsylvania, and the subject of this lawsuit is entirely located in Pittston, Pennsylvania.
Indeed we find that many of the meetings involved in negotiating this contract did take place in New York, but the testimony also reveals that much of the negotiation was done by telephone and that there were telephonic communication with Pennsylvania, as well as many physical visits into this state, particularly for the purpose of looking over the holdings of the Plaintiff that were to be insured within the boundaries of this Commonwealth.
Additionally we find that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a very substantial interest in protecting the rights of its corporate entities, as well as those with whom they do business. The Defendant Company in this case chose to do business within the confines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the business of insuring against catastrophic losses is one in which the Commonwealth has a very distinct interest. It is known, and was indicated in this case, that insurance companies must indeed file with the various states in which they do business and must abide in the drafting and writing and issuing of their policies, not only in the state where their headquarter's office is located, but in any state in which they issue a policy. This, of course, allows the state in which the property covered is located to maintain its own methods of assuring that the coverage is properly written and any losses are properly administered. The insurance Company Law of May 17, 1921, P.L. 682, as amended, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 40, § 341 et seq. (Purdon), and the Insurance Department Act of May 17, 1921, P.L. 789, as amended, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 40, § 1 et seq., (Purdon), now provide the basic regulation for Pennsylvania insurance carriers.