Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

VILLAGE SQUARE AT WESTBROOK VILLAGE, an Arizona corporation THE HONORABLE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND Deputy Clerk ----PROCEEDINGS:

v.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., et al. CASE NO. CV-03-02515 PHX (HRH) Official Recorder -----

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

The court has completed its initial review and analysis of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. A principal, although not the only, potentially dispositive issue in this case that involves the interpretation of an insurance policy is the question of the meaning of the term "collapse". That issue is a question of law for the court;

and, in a case such as this, the court looks to local, Arizona law for guidance. In this case, the term "collapse" is neither defined by the

policy in question, nor has the Arizona Supreme Court had occasion to construe that term in the context of an insurance policy. Under these

circumstances, the court might undertake to predict how the Arizona Supreme Court would decide the issue, but there is another avenue that might be followed. Arizona law (A.R.S. § 12-1861) and Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27 make provision for the certification of questions of law from, among others, a United States District Court to the Arizona Supreme Court when there is no controlling Arizona precedent.

- 1 Case 2:03-cv-02515-HRH Document 62 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 1 of 2

It is the court's perception that there is sufficient money in controversy here that a party who does not prevail is likely to appeal; and it is also this court's perception that, in light of the rather significant division of authority on the meaning of the term "collapse" around the country, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals might itself certify the interpretation question present in this case to the Arizona Supreme Court. It would appear to this court more efficient for a

certification to take place now so that all concerned can be informed as to how Arizona would interpret the insurance contract in question such that this court could then apply that holding, either in a continuation of these summary judgment proceedings or at trial in the event this court determines that there is a fact dispute. The court is

disinclined to make the decision about certification without input from the parties. Counsel for the parties shall confer; and, if they are in

agreement that there should be a certification at this time, the parties shall formulate and propose to the court an appropriate certification order. See Rule 27(a), Rules of the Supreme Court of

Arizona. If the parties are not in agreement about certification, they shall please serve and file simultaneous supplemental memoranda in connection with the pending motions for summary judgment, briefly addressing their views of whether there should or should not be a certification at this time. Counsel will please confer on or before

August 19, 2005, and file a report of their meeting on or before August 24, 2005. In the event the parties are in agreement regarding

certification, a proposed certification order will please be lodged with the court on or before September 2, 2005.

- 2 Case 2:03-cv-02515-HRH Document 62 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 2 of 2