Whether the Eleventh Circuit abused its discretion by requiring allegations not contained in Chapter 397 and by denying petitioners' motion to certify dispositive questions of first impression to the Florida Supreme Court when resolving the duty to defend without guidance from the courts of Florida

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; This insurance coverage case arose as a result of the death of a ten-year-old boy receiving substance : abuse services under Florida’s comprehensive : statutory scheme to address substance abuse. Chapter 397 of the Florida Statutes gives specific statutory rights to clients who, by definition, receive substance abuse treatment and requires insurance coverage for providers of treatment. A complaint explicitly alleged duty, breach, and damages under the statute. Because there had not been a Florida state court decision directly applicable to the effect of the statutory provisions on issues relating to the duty to defend, Petitioners requested certification to the Florida Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit denied certification without providing any analysis or reason. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit abused its discretion by requiring allegations not contained in Chapter 397 and by denying petitioners’ motion to certify dispositive questions of first impression to the Florida Supreme Court when resolving the duty to defend without guidance from the courts of Florida. 2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s decision reflected a clear misapprehension of summary judgement standards in precedent like Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), and violated Rule 56(c) by rejecting applicable facts. i PARTIES The petitioners are Mark Chapman, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of : Gregory Chapman, deceased, and the Estate of Barbara Chapman, deceased, Irene Chapman. The petitioners were Plaintiffs Counter Defendants below. Kathy and William Ruff and their daughter, Melissa LaGotte, were also Plaintiffs — Counter Defendants in the district court proceedings. The respondent is ACE American Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation formerly known as Cigna Insurance Company. The respondent was Defendant -Counter Claimant below. Petitioners acknowledge that the respondent is a corporate nongovernmental entity that issues shares of its ownership interests publicly. So, Respondent may have a parent company, subsidiary, or other publicly held company (or shareholders of those companies) that own 10% or more of any stock in Respondent.