{"id":544,"date":"2025-05-23T19:10:55","date_gmt":"2025-05-23T23:10:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/?p=544"},"modified":"2025-05-23T19:10:55","modified_gmt":"2025-05-23T23:10:55","slug":"sdny-enforces-ny-choice-of-law-clause-in-policy-despite-alleged-conflict-with-law-in-state-of-issuance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/2025\/05\/23\/sdny-enforces-ny-choice-of-law-clause-in-policy-despite-alleged-conflict-with-law-in-state-of-issuance\/","title":{"rendered":"SDNY Enforces NY Choice of Law Clause in Policy Despite Alleged Conflict with Law in State of Issuance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Insurance policies frequently contain choice-of-law provisions providing that their interpretation is subject to the law of a particular jurisdiction. Thus, if a policy\u2019s choice-of-law provision requires that the policy be interpreted in accordance with New York law, then the policy should be interpreted in accordance with New York law. That seemingly self-evident proposition was recently upheld by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co.<\/em>, 23 Civ. 8844 (KPF), 2025 WL 764131 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025).

But, according to the insured, Cajun Conti, the proposition is not self-evident at all. This is because the insurance policy containing the New York choice-of-law provision was issued to Cajun Conti in Louisiana, and, under the Louisiana Insurance Code, foreign choice-of-law provisions are void, at least for policies issued in Louisiana and subject to approval by the Louisiana Department of Insurance. See La. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 22:868.

The Southern District, however, rejected Cajun Conti\u2019s invocation of the Louisiana statute, and enforced the parties\u2019 contractual commitment to be bound by New York law. Cajun Conti<\/em>, 2025 WL 764131, at *4-*7. The Court did so for several reasons.

First, Section 5-1401 of New York’s General Obligations Law provides that any contract governing transactions in excess of $250,000 containing a New York choice-of-law provision is enforceable in New York. Indeed, New York\u2019s highest court has held that a provision subject to Section 5-1401 obviates the need for any further conflicts-of-law analysis. The provision is presumptively enforceable. Cajun Conti<\/em>, 2025 WL 764131, at *4.

Second, the Cajun Conti <\/em>court noted that, even in the absence of Section 5-1401, New York courts should enforce choice-of-law provisions as a matter of contract interpretation. To that end, the court cited a recent decision from New York\u2019s Court of Appeals holding that \u201cwhen the parties have chosen New York law, a court may not contravene that choice through common-law conflicts analysis.\u201d Cajun Conti<\/em>, 2025 WL 764131, at *5 (citing Petr\u00f3leos de Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A.<\/em>, 41 N.Y.3d 462, 476 (2024)).
Third, the Cajun Conti<\/em> court rejected a \u201cpublic policy\u201d exception to the foregoing rules, finding no basis for such an exception in controlling New York law. Cajun Conti<\/em>, 2025 WL 764131, at *6.

Based on the foregoing principles of New York law, the Cajun Conti <\/em>court concluded that the Louisiana statute purporting to void the contract provision is ultimately irrelevant.

The takeaway is that courts in New York should apply New York law to insurance policies requiring the application of New York law, irrespective of alleged public policy concerns arising from contrary law of the insureds\u2019 home state. This rule provides certainty to the parties concerning their rights and obligations and ensures that their contractual intent will be upheld.
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Insurance policies frequently contain choice-of-law provisions providing that their interpretation is subject to the law of a particular jurisdiction. Thus, if a policy\u2019s choice-of-law provision requires that the policy be interpreted in accordance with New York law, then the policy should be interpreted in accordance with New York law. That seemingly self-evident proposition was recently … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “SDNY Enforces NY Choice of Law Clause in Policy Despite Alleged Conflict with Law in State of Issuance”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[487,381,488,12,50,67],"ppma_author":[413,432],"class_list":["post-544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-choice-of-law","tag-covid-19","tag-david-mctaggart","tag-insurance","tag-max-stern","tag-new-york"],"authors":[{"term_id":413,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"1","last_name":"Davies","first_name":"Thomas","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com","description":"Visit the Duane Morris website.<\/a>"},{"term_id":432,"user_id":466,"is_guest":0,"slug":"dtmctaggart","display_name":"David T. McTaggart","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2020\/06\/mctaggartdavid-125x150.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"McTaggart","first_name":"David","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/davidtmctaggart.html","description":"Read David's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=544"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}