lex loci delicti rule in North Carolina

2016Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 335 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 853-54 (1988).

2016Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 335 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 853-54 (1988).

2020App. 585 , 587– 88, 503 S.E.2d 434, 435 (1998) (noting that a “review of North Carolina caselaw reveals a steadfast adherence by our courts to the traditional application of the lex loci delicti doctrine” in matters affecting the substantive rights of the parties). -17- SCIGRIP, INC.

2020App. 585 , 587– 88, 503 S.E.2d 434, 435 (1998) (noting that a “review of North Carolina caselaw reveals a steadfast adherence by our courts to the traditional application of the lex loci delicti doctrine” in matters affecting the substantive rights of the parties). -17- SCIGRIP, INC.

2020WL 5437119 at *1, a federal district court concluded that a North Carolina court “would have applied the lex loci delicti rule to determine which state’s laws govern all of [the North Carolina employer’s] claims other than breach of contract,” including the plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim, id. at *3–4 (citing United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp., 762 F. Supp. 126, 129 (W.D.N.C. 1991) (predicting that this Court “would apply the traditional lex loci rule rather than the most significant relationship test” in a deceptive trade practices case); Martinez v. Nat’l

2020WL 5437119 at *1, a federal district court concluded that a North Carolina court “would have applied the lex loci delicti rule to determine which state’s laws govern all of [the North Carolina employer’s] claims other than breach of contract,” including the plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim, id. at *3–4 (citing United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp., 762 F. Supp. 126, 129 (W.D.N.C. 1991) (predicting that this Court “would apply the traditional lex loci rule rather than the most significant relationship test” in a deceptive trade practices case); Martinez v. Nat’l

2020Co., 911 F. Supp. 2d 331, 338 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (noting that this Court “has affirmed the continuing validity” of the lex loci test in deceptive trade practices cases); and Domtar AI Inc., 43 -18- SCIGRIP, INC.

2020Co., 911 F. Supp. 2d 331, 338 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (noting that this Court “has affirmed the continuing validity” of the lex loci test in deceptive trade practices cases); and Domtar AI Inc., 43 -18- SCIGRIP, INC.

2008"North Carolina follows the lex loci delicti rule (law of the situs of the claim) in resolving choice of law for tort claims." Terry v. Pullman Trailmobile, 92 N.C.App. 687, 690 , 376 S.E.2d 47, 49 (1989).

2008"North Carolina follows the lex loci delicti rule (law of the situs of the claim) in resolving choice of law for tort claims." Terry v. Pullman Trailmobile, 92 N.C.App. 687, 690 , 376 S.E.2d 47, 49 (1989).

2018Irving, Ltd., 43 F. Supp. 3d 635, 641 (E.D.N.C. 2014) (concluding that plaintiffs could not bring a claim under North Carolina’s TSPA because defendants’ alleged misappropriation occurred in Canada); 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Indus., Inc., No. 5:14-CV-5147, 2015 U.S. Dist.

2010See, e.g., ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42 , 49 n.11 (4th Cir. 1983) (“[IJnjuries sustained by ITCO, a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina, were sustained in the state of North Carolina.”); Rhone-Poulenc Agro S.A. v. Monsanto Co., 73 F. Supp. 2d 554, 555 (M.D.N.C. 1999) (“Other federal courts that have examined the application of the lex loci delicti rule to fraud claims consistently have concluded that the state where the injury occurred in a fraud claim is the state in which the plaintiff suffered the economic impact[,]” i.e. its p

2010See, e.g., ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42 , 49 n.11 (4th Cir. 1983) (“[IJnjuries sustained by ITCO, a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina, were sustained in the state of North Carolina.”); Rhone-Poulenc Agro S.A. v. Monsanto Co., 73 F. Supp. 2d 554, 555 (M.D.N.C. 1999) (“Other federal courts that have examined the application of the lex loci delicti rule to fraud claims consistently have concluded that the state where the injury occurred in a fraud claim is the state in which the plaintiff suffered the economic impact[,]” i.e. its p

1998See Boudreau, 322 N.C. at 335-36 , 368 S.E.2d at 854 (stating that the mle of lex loci delicti “continues to be the majority rule in the United States,” and that as such, there is no reason for our courts to abandon the well-settled mle); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124, 126-27 , 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (“We do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in the lawsuit allowed by this decision, the long-established doctrine of lex loci delicti commissi applies, and Virginia law controls.”); Lormic Development Corp. v. N. American Roof

1998App. 705, 710 , 383 S.E.2d 694, 697 (1989) (“Because we adhere to the lex loci delicti rule in determining conflicts of law issues in tort, South Carolina tort law governs the determination of this issue.”); Shaw v. Lee, 258 N.C. 609 , 129 S.E.2d 278 (1963) (holding that plaintiff widow could not recover against husband’s estate for alleged injuries sustained in automobile accident because under the lexi loci delicti rule, Virgina law, which adhered to the doctrine of interspousal immunity, barred her personal injury claim); Petrea v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc., 264 N.C. 230 , 141 S.E.2d 278 (1965

1998See Boudreau, 322 N.C. at 335-36 , 368 S.E.2d at 854 (stating that the mle of lex loci delicti “continues to be the majority rule in the United States,” and that as such, there is no reason for our courts to abandon the well-settled mle); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124, 126-27 , 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (“We do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in the lawsuit allowed by this decision, the long-established doctrine of lex loci delicti commissi applies, and Virginia law controls.”); Lormic Development Corp. v. N. American Roof

1998See Boudreau, 322 N.C. at 335-36 , 368 S.E.2d at 854 (stating that the mle of lex loci delicti “continues to be the majority rule in the United States,” and that as such, there is no reason for our courts to abandon the well-settled mle); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124, 126-27 , 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (“We do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in the lawsuit allowed by this decision, the long-established doctrine of lex loci delicti commissi applies, and Virginia law controls.”); Lormic Development Corp. v. N. American Roof

1989Childress v. Johnson Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522, 524 , 70 S.E.2d 558, 560 (1952); Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 335 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1988) (“[f]or actions sounding in tort, the state where the injury occurred is considered the situs of the *711 claim.

1989Childress v. Johnson Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522, 524 , 70 S.E.2d 558, 560 (1952); Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 335 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1988) (“[f]or actions sounding in tort, the state where the injury occurred is considered the situs of the *711 claim.