When there is more than one state, or more than one jurisdiction (state court, federal court) with a significant relationship to the parties and circumstances involved in a lawsuit or dispute, the question may arise as to which state or jurisdiction’s laws will govern the lawsuit or dispute. The body of law that determines what law governs a dispute is called conflict of laws and consists of legal principles courts use to determine which state or jurisdiction’s law applies—unless the parties to a dispute have agreed (usually in a contract) on what law will apply.

In Michigan, as in other states, the issue of which jurisdiction's laws apply to a lawsuit or dispute is governed by the principles of conflict of laws, also known as choice of law rules. These rules are designed to resolve questions of which state or jurisdiction's substantive law should be applied when there are competing jurisdictions connected to the parties or the circumstances of the case. Michigan courts will consider various factors, such as the place where a contract was made or where an injury occurred, the domicile or residence of the parties, and where a relationship is centered. If the parties have a valid choice of law clause in a contract, Michigan courts will generally honor such provisions, as long as the chosen law bears a reasonable relation to the parties or the transaction and is not contrary to a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest. In the absence of such an agreement, Michigan courts will apply conflict of laws principles to determine the most appropriate jurisdiction's laws to apply, taking into account the interests and policies of the involved states to ensure that the outcome is fair and predictable.