Louis Simon; Howard Asher; Henry F. Miller; Suzanne Peterson, Executors of the Estate of B. Kenin Hart, Deceased,* Appellant. v. United States of America.mary Schalliol, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Dennis Schalliol, Deceased v. John Fare, Jr., As Personal Representative of the Estate of John Fare; Hart Delaware Corporation; United States of America.mary Schalliol, Appellantjohn Fare, Jr., Appellant

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. - 366 F.3d 204

April 21, 2004 As Amended April 27, 2004

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz.

Arthur G. Raynes, Stephen E. Raynes, Raynes, McCarty, Binder, Ross & Mundy, Daniel S. Weinstock, Feldman, Shepherd & Wohlgelernter, Philadelphia, PA, Aaron S. Podhurst, Joel S. Perwin, Michael S. Olin, Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, Miami, FL, Harry A. Wilson, Jr., Donald B. Kehoe, Wilson, Kehoe & Winingham, Indianapolis, IN, for Appellants.

Terence M. Healy, Rodney Patton, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Joseph M. Lamonaca, Chadds Ford, PA, J. Arthur Mozley, Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins, Atlanta, GA, for Appellee.

Before SLOVITER, AMBRO, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

BECKER, Judge.

1

The interlocutory appeal came before us on a certification by the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which presented us with the question whether Indiana's or D.C.'s choice-of-law rules govern a suit against the United States by the estates of passengers killed in the crash of a small private aircraft.

2

On August 20, 2003, we filed an opinion, 341 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.2003), accompanied by a certification of the following questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: (1) whether a true conflict exists between Indiana's and D.C.'s choice-of-law rules; and (2) if there is a true conflict and Indiana's choice-of-law rules therefore control per our "last significant act" test, how to resolve a split among the Hubbard factors in choosing a jurisdiction's substantive law when one factor points toward Indiana, another toward Pennsylvania, and the third is indeterminate, and what substantive law Indiana would choose under these facts.

3

On March 31, 2004, the Indiana Supreme Court filed an opinion, No. 94S00-0308-CQ-377, responding to the certified questions.1

4

The questions certified to us by the District Court now having been answered, the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.


1

We note that the District Court accurately predicted the Indiana Supreme Court's holding