Narrative Opinion Summary
The trial court's ruling to apply Florida law in this case is affirmed. Both parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the choice of law, agreeing that no material issues of fact existed and that the applicable law was either Georgia or Florida. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel indicated that only these two states' laws were relevant. The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that the trial court correctly applied the legal test from *Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co.*, concluding that Florida law was appropriate based on the undisputed facts. The decision is supported by precedent from *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen*. Judges Anstead, Gunther, and Warner concur with the ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Legal Tests in Determining Applicable Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court applied the legal test from *Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co.* to determine that Florida law was applicable based on the undisputed facts of the case.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that the trial court correctly applied the legal test from *Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co.*, concluding that Florida law was appropriate based on the undisputed facts.
Choice of Law in Contract Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to apply Florida law was affirmed after considering cross-motions for summary judgment, where both parties agreed that the applicable law was either Georgia or Florida.
Reasoning: The trial court's ruling to apply Florida law in this case is affirmed.
Precedent in Choice of Law Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's application of Florida law was supported by precedent from *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen*.
Reasoning: The decision is supported by precedent from *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen*.