TONY MANCUSO v. STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE CO (2023)

Certification denied.

I would grant the request to answer the certified question. This court is singularly qualified to provide the federal court with an answer on how to interpret the substantive law of Louisiana. The issue involved in this case impacts a substantial number of Louisiana citizens, and a definitive answer by this court would expedite the resolution of the litigation benefitting the parties to this litigation as well as numerous similarly situated litigants.

I disagree with the majority decision to deny certification in this matter. In my view, the Louisiana Supreme Court has an interest in opining on significant issues of Louisiana state law, including the issue presented here concerning interpretations of La. R.S. 9:2778 and 22:868 as they relate to forum selection clauses in public contracts and Louisiana insurance contracts. As I have stated, “[c]ertification promotes comity between the state and federal courts, permitting the highest court of the state to develop principles of state substantive law.” Goodrich v. United States, 21-988 (La. 11/17/21), 327 So. 3d 492 (Crichton, J., dissenting from the denial of certification). See also Seguin v. Remington Arms Company, L.L.C., 22-0037 (La. 3/22/22), 334 So. 3d 752 (Crichton, J., dissenting from the denial of certification). In my view, and notwithstanding my concern about the implications of newly revised La. Sup. Ct. Rule XII, because of the timing of these matters, this Court should have granted certification in this case in order to promote the “cooperative judicial federalism” that the certification procedure contemplates. Id., citing Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 390, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974).

I concur in the denial of certification as, in my view, answers to the certified questions may be sufficiently ascertained through the statutory language and existing jurisprudence to enable the district court to make an “Erie guess.” I further note that this denial does not prevent certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at a later date should the litigation proceed to that point.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., would grant certification and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., would grant certification. Griffin, J., concurs in the denial and assigns reasons.