National Union Fire Insurance v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp.

MEMORANDUM *

National Union appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dassault, contending that the district. court incorrectly resolved the choice-of-law issue with regard to its tort claims, and incorrectly granted summary judgment with regard to its implied warranty claim. The facts and procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here.

California applies a three-step governmental interest analysis to choice-of-law questions. 1 See Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club, 16 Cal.3d 313 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719, 721-23 (1976); see also Aboga *606 dos, 228 F.3d at 934. First, the court must examine the substantive law of each jurisdiction to determine whether the laws differ as applied to the relevant transaction. Hurtado v. Super. Ct., 11 Cal.3d 574 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 106 , 522 P.2d 666, 669 (1974). Second, the court must determine whether each relevant jurisdiction has a legitimate interest in having its law applied to the present case. Id. Third, the court identifies and “applies] the law of the state whose interest would be the more impaired if its law were not applied.” Bernhard, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d at 723…