1) Does Brennan's failure to distinguish between Due Process and Full
Faith and Credit in Hague cause problems with his analysis? Brennan
three contacts with Minnesota
a) that the plaintiff's husband was a member of the
Minnesota workforce and commuted to work there
b) that Allstate does business in Minnesota
c) that the plaintiff now lives in Minnesota
Which contacts are relevant for due process? Are b or c relevant? Does
the fact that Allstate does a lot of business in Minnesota give it a
reason to anticipate that Minnesota law would apply to this
contract? Could the fact that the plaintiff moved to Minnesota
after the accident possibly affect Allstate's expectations at the time
of the contracting?
Which contacts are relevant for full faith and credit? Isn't Powell
right that a is irelevant as
far as Minnesota's interests in its stacking
law applying are concerned? What about b? Isn't Powell right
that this too is irrelevant to Minnesota's interests in its stacking
Is there any role to by played by contact b for either due process or full
faith and credit purposes?
Even if Brennan's reasoning is wrong, can't a correct argument that
both due process and full faith and credit are satisfied be cobbled
2) Consider the following argument that the application of Minnesota
law is compatible with due process in Hague: Allstate should not be
the application of Minnesota law because it knew that the insured was a
member of the Minnesota workforce and commuted to work there. Can that
argument work when the accident at issue did not arise from a commute?
3) Consider the following argument that the application of Minnesota
law is compatible with full faith and credit in Hague: Minnesota is
in its law applying because the plaintiff is a Minnesota domiciliary
and Minnesota's stacking law is intended to increase insurance recovery
for Minnesotans. Isn't Powell right that accepting this argument will
encourage forum shopping?
4) Isn't Full Faith and Credit satisfied in Shutts on the ground that
the forum always has an interest in applying its law? Is Shutts better
understood as a due process case?
5) The book suggests that Sun Oil v. Wortman was wrongly decided. Is
the decision wrong on due process grounds? How about full faith and
credit - is the book right that KS would not be interested in its
statute of limitatiosn applying, since it would have no reason to give
a greater amount of time to sue to non-Kansans?
6) Is the
application of LA's direct action statute in Watson compatible with
full faith and credit? How about due process?
Wouldn't the insurer be surprised by the application of LA law to a
contract made in IL and MA?