No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net

and apply “the law of the state where the car was intended to be principally located” unless,
for some reason, another state “has a more significant relationship to the transaction” in
question. Western States Ins. Co. v. Zschau, 298 Ill.App.3d 214, 223 (2d Dist. 1998); Allen
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 214 Ill.App.3d 729, 738 (1st Dist. 1991). See also
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 193 and cmt b (1971).
Here, it cannot plausibly be said that Illinois — whose only “contact” with the vast
majority of out-of state class members is its location as State Farm’s headquarters — has a
“more significant relationship” to those class members than the states in which they reside.
Consider, for example, Michael Avery, whose name supplies the caption for this case. Mr.
Avery lives in Louisiana. R. 6172. He bought his State Farm policy from an agent in
Louisiana. R. 6176. His policy form was approved by the Louisiana Insurance
Commissioner. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:620(A)(1). He took his damaged car to a bodyshop
in Louisiana. R. 6187. An adjuster from State Farm’s Louisiana office wrote an estimate
for non-OEM parts containing a disclosure required by the Louisiana legislature. R. 6181-
82; PX 1309; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:2424. Avery complained to his agent and an adjuster
in Louisiana. R. 6188-90. He ultimately paid for OEM parts in Louisiana. R. 6191. Even
if Illinois could plausibly claim some contact with the transaction about which Mr. Avery
complains, it cannot claim a more significant relationship than Louisiana. The same is true
for the millions of class members whose cars are garaged outside Illinois and whose policies
were issued and claims were adjusted outside Illinois.
Given the obviously superior interest of other states in applying their laws to
transactions within their borders, the circuit court should not have applied ICFA nationwide.
-116-