## Facts

- An insurer issued two life insurance policies to David McKay, Sr., who died in 1983.
- The policies listed the decedent’s children from a prior marriage as the sole beneficiaries.
- The decedent’s widow claimed the decedent intended to name her as a beneficiary despite the policy designations.
- The insurer filed a federal interpleader action in Oregon to resolve competing claims to the proceeds.
- The parties stipulated that Washington substantive law governed the underlying dispute.
- The widow’s claim depended largely on testimony by the widow and an insurance agent about transactions with the decedent.
- Washington law includes a deadman’s statute barring certain testimony by interested persons about communications or transactions with a decedent; Oregon generally treats witness competency as broadly admissible and left to factfinder evaluation.

## Issues

1. Under Oregon conflict-of-laws principles, is Washington’s deadman’s statute a substantive rule that follows Washington law, or a procedural rule of witness competency governed by Oregon forum law?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court answered the certified question by holding that Washington’s deadman’s statute is procedural under Oregon law.
- An Oregon court would apply Oregon law, not Washington’s deadman’s statute, to determine witness competency regarding a decedent’s transactions or statements, even when Washington law governs other issues.

## Legal Principles

- In Oregon choice-of-law analysis, rules governing witness competency are treated as procedural and are governed by the law of the forum.
- A deadman’s statute operates as a witness-competency rule that excludes testimony from a class of interested witnesses rather than defining substantive rights to recovery.
- Selection of another state’s substantive law for the underlying rights does not, without more, import that state’s procedural evidentiary disqualifications into an Oregon forum.

## Conclusion

Oregon classifies an out-of-state deadman’s statute as a procedural rule of witness competency, so Oregon courts apply Oregon competency rules even when another state’s substantive law governs the dispute.


Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S. v. McKay, 306 Or. 493, 760 P.2d 871 (Or. 1988)