81 N.Y.2d 219 (1993)
r
r
In contract disputes involving multistate contacts, courts should apply a “grouping of contacts” analysis, considering factors like the place of contracting, negotiation, performance, subject matter location, and domicile of contracting parties, while also evaluating relevant state interests and policies underlying conflicting laws.
r
r
Summary
r
This case addresses a conflict of laws in an automobile insurance dispute where Kathleen Stolarz, a New York resident, was injured in New York while driving a car insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM) under a policy issued in New Jersey. The policy had a combined uninsured/underinsured limit with an offset provision. The court held that there was no actual conflict between New York and New Jersey law regarding the validity of the offset clause and, alternatively, that even if a conflict existed, New Jersey law would govern based on a grouping of contacts analysis. The court emphasized that the contract was made in New Jersey, involved New Jersey parties, and concerned a vehicle registered in New Jersey.
r
r
Facts
r
Kathleen Stolarz and her husband were injured in a car accident in New York while driving a company car leased by her employer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New Jersey, and insured by NJM in New Jersey. The NJM policy had a $35,000 combined uninsurance/underinsurance limit with a clause reducing payments by amounts received from legally responsible parties. The Stolarzes received $20,000 from the other driver’s insurance. NJM sought to offset this amount from the $35,000 policy limit. The Stolarzes argued that New York law invalidated such offset clauses, demanding the full $35,000.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Allstate (Stolarzes’ personal insurer) initiated a proceeding to stay arbitration, joined by NJM seeking declaratory relief. Supreme Court, relying on prior New York case law, determined a conflict existed and applied New York law, preventing the offset. The Appellate Division affirmed. NJM appealed to the Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether a conflict exists between New York and New Jersey law regarding the validity of offset clauses in combined uninsured/underinsured automobile insurance policies.
r
2. If a conflict exists, whether New York or New Jersey law should apply to determine the enforceability of the offset clause in the NJM policy.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because the NJM policy contains a single, combined limit of uninsurance/underinsurance, and the offset provision does not present a deception similar to that identified in prior New York case law.
r
2. New Jersey law applies because the contract was negotiated and made in New Jersey, the parties to the contract are both New Jersey entities, and the subject matter of the contract (the vehicle) is registered in New Jersey.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court found no conflict, distinguishing prior New York case law which invalidated offset clauses in strictly underinsurance policies. The NJM policy’s combined limit meant the insured could receive the full stated limit under certain circumstances (uninsured driver), mitigating potential deception. The court also noted that new regulations by the NY Superintendent of Insurance approved single limits and required offsets. Even assuming a conflict, the court applied a