Whether under Erie v. Tompkins a federal court can apply federal common law rules of contract construction instead of New Jersey state law principles

1. Whether under the mandate of Erie v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938), a federal court is permitted to apply federal common law rules of construction in lieu of well settled state law principles of contract interpretation as articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In other words, are the rules of construction of a contract “quintessentially substantive,” rather than procedural, thereby mandating the application of state contract law to decide interpretation questions? 2. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit erred in refusing to follow Third Circuit precedent construing a New Jersey contract under New Jersey law, thereby creating an untenable split of authority. 3. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit erred in factfinding that an insured was a sophisticated party when there is nothing in the record supporting such a finding and the issue was never raised, briefed, or argued below.