Have Ninth Circuit Panels and Montana federal district courts abused their discretion by denying certification to the Montana Supreme Court of 'first impression' substantive law insurance issues?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Petition and recently filed Randy Tarum et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., No. 23-973, both raise the identical issue: have Ninth Circuit Panels and Montana federal district courts abused their discretion by denying certification to the Montana Supreme Court of “first impression” substantive law insurance issues? 1. Should cooperative federalism, comity, efficient federal practice, and the divergent decisions in the Circuits prompt the Court in the wake of Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974), to clarify and update the procedure for certifying questions of state law in diversity actions so that it is a predictable, if not mandated, process when an insurance question is one of “first impression,” significantly affecting the welfare of citizens in the state, and determinative of the cause of action in the federal forum? 2. Were Petitioners denied a fair hearing in this diversity action when, after acknowledging that a statelaw insurance issue is one of “first impression” in Montana, the Panel refused to certify the question to the state’s highest court, relegating petitioners to an inappropriate “Hirie guess” of Montana’s insurance law?