## Facts

- A small private aircraft crashed in Kentucky during an attempted landing in poor weather, striking a radio tower and killing the pilot and passengers.
- The flight began in Pennsylvania, stopped overnight in Ohio, and ended in Kentucky; it never entered Indiana airspace.
- The pilot relied on an FAA approach chart published in Washington, D.C., indicating an instrument approach at the Kentucky airport.
- Indianapolis-based FAA air traffic controllers cleared the pilot for an approach that allegedly had been out of service for years and allegedly failed to monitor and warn of obstacles.
- Estates filed wrongful-death actions against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligence both in Washington, D.C. (chart publication) and Indiana (air traffic control).
- In the federal proceedings, questions arose over which jurisdiction’s substantive tort law applies given multi-jurisdiction conduct and an out-of-state crash location.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified questions to the Indiana Supreme Court regarding Indiana’s choice-of-law rules for torts.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s tort choice-of-law methodology materially conflicts with the District of Columbia’s choice-of-law approach in a multi-jurisdiction tort.
2. Under Indiana law, how a court selects the governing substantive tort law when the place of the injury has little connection to the litigation and negligent conduct occurred in more than one jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held there is a true conflict between Indiana and District of Columbia choice-of-law rules.
- The court reaffirmed Indiana’s two-step framework from *Hubbard Manufacturing Co. v. Greeson* for tort choice-of-law determinations.
- The court held Indiana does not permit dépeçage and therefore does not split a single tort claim into issues governed by different jurisdictions’ substantive laws.
- Applying Indiana’s approach, the court indicated Indiana law would govern under Indiana’s choice-of-law analysis in this litigation.
- The court answered the certified questions and returned the case to the federal courts for further proceedings under the clarified Indiana rules.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana applies a modified lex loci delicti rule: presumptively applying the law of the place where the “last event necessary” for liability occurred.
- If the place of the tort bears little connection to the action, Indiana considers additional contacts, including:
  - where the conduct causing the injury occurred,
  - the residences or places of business of the parties, and
  - where the parties’ relationship is centered.
- Indiana does not engage in dépeçage in tort cases; it selects a single jurisdiction’s substantive law to govern the claim.
- Indiana has not adopted the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “policy analysis” method used by some jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court clarified that Indiana tort conflicts law follows the *Hubbard* two-step analysis, rejects dépeçage and Restatement-style policy analysis, and requires selection of one jurisdiction’s substantive law for a tort claim even when alleged negligence occurred in multiple jurisdictions.


Simon v. United States, 805 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2004)