Michael J. Murtaugh, Lawrence J. DiPinto, and Thomas N. Fay,
Murtaugh Meyer Nelson & Treglia LLP, Irvine, California,
Stern and Jessica E. La Londe, Duane Morris LLP, San
Francisco, California; Katherine Nichols, Duane Morris LLP,
Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Harry Pregerson, Richard A. Paez, and Andrew D.
Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.
CERTIFYING QUESTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
to California Supreme Court The panel certified the following
questions of state law to the California Supreme Court:
California's common law notice-prejudice rule a
fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law
analysis? May common law rules other than unconscionability
not enshrined in statute, regulation, or the constitution, be
fundamental public policies for the purpose of choice-of-law
the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for
the purpose of choice-of-law analysis, can a consent
provision in a first-party claim insurance policy be
interpreted as a notice provision such that the
notice-prejudice rule applies?
certify the questions set forth in Part II of this order to
the California Supreme Court. The answers to these questions
are dispositive of the case, without clear California
precedent, and important to protections for California
insureds. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.548. We therefore
respectfully request that the California Supreme Court
exercise its discretion to decide the certified questions
presented below. Absent certification, we will "predict
as best we can what the California Supreme Court would do in
these circumstances." Pacheco v. United States,
220 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).
Administrative Information We provide the following
information in accordance with California Rule of Court
caption of this case is:
PITZER COLLEGE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and ...