Whether the court of appeals exercised its diversity jurisdiction to nullify settled state law by allowing an insured to switch brokers while keeping the same policies in place, denying the original broker commissions it would otherwise be awarded in State court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. The law of Pennsylvania gives an insurance broker the vested right to commissions for as long as the policies it procured for the insured remain in effect, even when the insured tries to switch brokers to avoid paying commissions. Did the court of appeals exercising its diversity jurisdiction nullify this settled state law by allowing an insured to switch brokers while keeping the same policies in place, denying the original broker commissions it would otherwise be awarded in State court? 2. By extinguishing the vested rights of insurance brokers in Pennsylvania to their earned commissions for as long as the policies they procure remain in effect, the Panel encourages insureds state-wide to switch brokers with impunity to avoid paying earned commissions, denies brokers the property rights they would otherwise possess in State court, and undermines the federalism principles of Hrie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)?