United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-60579 

____________ 

American Compensation Insurance Company, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Hector Ruiz, doing business as Los Primoz Construction; 

Raul Aparacio; Jesco, Incorporated; Appalachian 

Underwriters, Incorporated, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 1:18-CV-213 

______________________________ 

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This workers’ compensation case arises from an accident suffered by 

Raul Aparacio during the course and scope of his work for Hector Ruiz d/b/a 

Los Primoz Construction (“Ruiz”). At the time of the accident, Ruiz had a 

workers’ compensation policy with American Compensation Insurance 

Company (“ACIC”) governed by Mississippi law. Despite providing 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 12, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

2 

benefits to Aparacio under the policy, ACIC initiated this lawsuit to declare 

the policy void ab initio based on a material misrepresentation in Ruiz’s application for the policy. ACIC also sought damages from Appalachian Underwriters (“Appalachian”), an insurance wholesale outlet, based on Appalachian’s failure to alert ACIC of the results of a phone survey indicating that 

ACIC had used the incorrect classification rating when issuing the policy. 

The district court dismissed all ACIC’s claims on summary judgment. ACIC 

now appeals. Because we cannot make a reliable Erie guess as to whether the 

Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act (“MWCA”) allows ACIC to void 

Ruiz’s policy ab initio based on the material misrepresentation in the policy 

application, we CERTIFY that question to the Mississippi Supreme Court. 

I. Factual Background 

In January 2017, Ruiz entered into a subcontractor agreement with 

JESCO, Inc. (“JESCO”) to provide temporary labor for a construction 

project in Starkville, Mississippi. As part of the subcontractor agreement, 

Ruiz was required to cover his employees under a workers’ compensation 

policy. In 2018, Ruiz enlisted the Van Wallace Agency—with whom he had 

previously worked—to help him procure a workers’ compensation policy for 

his work on the JESCO project. Jonathan Wallace, who prepared Ruiz’s 

insurance application, relied on Ruiz’s past applications with the agency to 

complete Ruiz’s 2018 application. In response to a question asking whether 

Ruiz performed work above two stories in height, Jonathan Wallace 

responded “no.” Wallace testified that he did not ask Ruiz whether he 

worked at heights and did not review this insurance application question with 

Ruiz. Ruiz confirmed that Wallace never reviewed the insurance application 

with him but testified that he had told Wallace that his company “[a]lways” 

performed work above the ground. 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

3 

Wallace submitted the application to Appalachian, an insurance 

wholesale outlet for whom Van Wallace acted as an agent under a written 

agreement. Appalachian, in turn, acted as an intermediary between retail 

agents and ACIC pursuant to a Marketing Services and Agency Agreement 

(“MSAA”). Under the MSAA, Appalachian served as an “independent 

contractor” for ACIC and its authority was limited to the provision of 

“marketing responsibilities and duties.” Under a provision of the MSAA 

titled “Quality of Services,” ACIC and Appalachian agreed to “serve each 

other faithfully” and “perform all acts necessary for the proper conduct of 

the business on behalf of both parties.”

Ruiz’s insurance application contained only a 5221 code, which is 

applicable to construction and concrete work that does not anticipate work at 

heights. During the process of binding the policy, however, questions arose 

as to whether Ruiz performed work at heights due to his prior workers’ 

compensation policies. Before submitting Ruiz’s application to ACIC, for 

example, an Appalachian underwriter, Andrew Cook, solicited written 

confirmation from Wallace that the 5221 code indicating that Ruiz did not 

perform work at heights was correct. Maureen Carter, an underwriter for 

ACIC, also expressed skepticism about the inclusion of the 5221 code in 

Ruiz’s application after noting that four of Ruiz’s prior policies—available to 

ACIC through the National Council on Compensation Insurance database—

contained a 5022 code, which contemplated work at heights. At ACIC’s 

request, Appalachian asked Wallace for confirmation that Ruiz did not 

perform work at heights. Wallace prepared a document stating the Ruiz did 

not perform work at heights and signed Ruiz’s signature on the document; 

Ruiz disputes that Wallace was authorized to use his signature. After Wallace 

submitted the statement, Ruiz told Wallace he did in fact perform work at 

heights, but Wallace never corrected the information he provided to 

Appalachian. 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

4 

ACIC ultimately issued Ruiz a workers’ compensation policy 

governed by Mississippi law. ACIC’s policy for Ruiz included both the 5221 

(no work at heights) and 5022 (work at heights) codes in the policy, though 

Ruiz was not charged a premium under the 5022 code since it was marked 

“[if] any” under the policy. Carter included the 5022 code in the policy, 

based on the discrepancy between the information in the 2018 application 

and Ruiz’s prior policies, so ACIC could later re-classify the policy and 

premiums if Ruiz were at any point found to work at heights. Under the 

policy, ACIC had the right to inspect Ruiz’s workplace to confirm the 

“insurability of the workplace[s] and the premium to be charged,” though 

ACIC did not perform an inspection.

After the policy issued, Risk Control Group (“RSG”), a loss control 

survey company hired by Appalachian to perform phone verification surveys 

for its clients, contacted Ruiz to perform a survey at Appalachian’s request. 

During the phone survey—for which Ruiz was charged $100—Ruiz 

disclosed to an RSG representative that his company performs work at 

heights of twenty to thirty feet above the ground. On or about May 10, 2020, 

RSG uploaded the results of the survey to a system shared with Appalachian. 

Appalachian did not share the results of the survey with ACIC, though the 

survey was available to ACIC upon request. Appalachian’s underwriting 

expert testified that under “generally accepted industry standards,” 

underwriters typically reviewed the results of phone surveys “within 30 to 

45 days” after receiving them. A representative of Appalachian further 

testified that generally it did not automatically forward survey results to 

insurance carriers, but rather referred to them if questions arose from 

carriers. 

On June 25, 2018, Aparacio fell and was injured while working at least 

fifteen feet above ground on the JESCO construction project. ACIC provided 

workers’ compensation benefits to Aparacio pursuant to the policy and 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

5 

Mississippi law because, as ACIC’s corporate representative testified, 

“[r]egardless of that code being there, any injury that happened would have 

been covered. It had nothing to do with the class code.” After learning that 

Aparacio was injured while working above ground, ACIC adjusted the class 

codes and premiums on Ruiz’s policy to account for work at heights. ACIC’s 

corporate representative testified that ACIC decided to seek to void Ruiz’s 

policy because it wanted to avoid further losses incurred in providing benefits 

to Aparacio under the policy. 

II. Procedural History 

ACIC initiated this lawsuit against JESCO and Ruiz seeking a 

declaration that under Mississippi law Ruiz’s workers’ compensation 

insurance policy is void ab initio and that ACIC has no duties under the 

policy. After some initial discovery, ACIC added RSG, Jonathan Wallace, 

and the Van Wallace Agency as defendants.1

 ACIC further amended its 

complaint to seek damages against Appalachian based on Appalachian’s 

alleged breach of the MSAA, breach of its fiduciary duties to ACIC, and 

negligence. After completing discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for 

summary judgment. The district court granted Appalachian’s, Ruiz’s, and 

JESCO’s motions for summary judgment, denied as moot ACIC’s motion 

for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claims, and entered final 

judgment in favor of Appalachian, Ruiz, and JESCO. ACIC timely appealed 

the district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing its claims. 

III. Standard of Review 

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standard on appeal as was applied below. Tiblier v. Dlabal, 

_____________________ 

1

 RSG was dismissed from this lawsuit by agreement of the parties, and ACIC later 

reached a settlement agreement with Jonathan Wallace and the Van Wallace Agency. 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

6 

743 F.3d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is proper “if the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

The summary judgment movant bears the burden of proving that no genuine 

issue of material fact exists. Latimer v. SmithKline & French Labs., 919 F.2d 

301, 303 (5th Cir. 1990). However, if the non-movant ultimately bears the 

burden of proof at trial, the summary judgment movant need not support its 

motion with evidence negating the non-movant’s case. Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Rather, the summary judgment movant 

may satisfy its burden by pointing to the mere absence of evidence supporting 

the non-movant’s case. Id.

IV. Discussion 

The district court granted the summary judgment motions of Ruiz, 

JESCO, and Appalachian, making an Erie guess that Mississippi law does not 

allow ACIC to void the workers’ compensation policy ab initio based on the 

material misrepresentation in Ruiz’s application for the policy. The district 

court further determined that ACIC failed to demonstrate that Appalachian 

breached any portion of the MSAA, owed ACIC any fiduciary duty, or 

proximately caused ACIC’s alleged injuries—based in part on its finding that 

ACIC could not rescind the policy under Mississippi law. The district court 

further denied ACIC’s motion for summary judgment on its declaratory 

judgment claims as moot in light of its conclusion that ACIC could not void 

the policy as a matter of law. On appeal, ACIC asks this court to reverse the 

district court, render judgment in favor of ACIC on its requests for 

declaratory judgment, and remand ACIC’s damages claims against 

Appalachian so they may proceed to trial. 

In evaluating whether Mississippi law allows ACIC to deem Ruiz’s 

policy void ab initio, the district court acknowledged that the issue presents a 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

7 

question of first impression under Mississippi law. The Mississippi Supreme 

Court has found coverage to extend to employees performing work outside 

that contemplated by workers’ compensation policies at the time of their 

injuries. Nat’l Sur. Corp. v. Kemp, 64 So. 2d 723, 731, suggestion of error 

overruled, 65 So. 2d 840 (Miss. 1953) (carrier obligated to compensate 

employee injured while hanging political banners where workers’ 

compensation policy only contemplated coverage for “gin operations”); 

Donald v. Whatley, 346 So. 2d 898, 900 (Miss. 1977) (carrier must cover 

injuries arising from injury related to construction of home where policy only 

contemplated work for pulpwood business operations). In Kemp, the 

Mississippi Supreme Court instructed that “the Workmen’s Compensation 

Law should be given a broad and liberal construction and that doubtful cases 

should be resolved in favor of compensation.” Kemp, 64 So. 2d at 725. Yet in 

2012 the Mississippi legislature amended the MWCA to remove any liberal 

interpretations favoring beneficiaries. MISS. CODE. ANN. § 71-3-1 (West 

2012) (“[N]otwithstanding any common law or case law to the contrary, this 

chapter shall not be presumed to favor one party over another and shall not 

be liberally construed in order to fulfill any beneficent purposes.”). 

Moreover, Kemp and Donald addressed the issue of coverage—not 

recission—and the state’s highest court has never addressed the specific 

question of whether the MWCA allows an insurer to void a policy based on a 

material misrepresentation. 

Because this appeal raises a question of first impression under state 

law, we must consider whether the appropriate course of action is to certify 

the issue for resolution by the Mississippi Supreme Court. See Accident Ins. 

Co. Inc. v. Kettley Trucking, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-730 at Doc. #95 at 13 (S.D. Miss. 

Sept. 2, 2020) (rescission of a worker’s compensation insurance policy under 

the MWCA is “an open question of Mississippi law”). The rules of the 

Mississippi Supreme Court allow for the certification of dispositive questions 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

8 

of Mississippi law from federal courts of appeals. MISS. R. APP. P. 20. The 

issue presented here satisfies that condition. 

The issue presented also satisfies the three factors used by this court 

in deciding whether to certify: 

1) the closeness of the question and the existence of sufficient 

sources of state law; 

2) the degree to which considerations of comity are relevant in 

light of the particular issue and case to be decided; and 

3) practical limitations on the certification process: significant 

delay and possible inability to frame the issue so as to produce a helpful response on the part of the state court. 

In re Gabriel Inv. Grp., 24 F.4th 503, 507 (5th Cir. 2022); see also Austin v. 

Kroger Tex. LP, 746 F.3d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, Mississippi law is 

unsettled on this issue, and “any Erie guess would involve more divining than 

discerning,” especially considering the 2012 amendments to the MWCA. See 

MISS. CODE. ANN. § 71-3-1; McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., 983 F.3d 194, 

202 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court in this case concluded that the 

MWCA does not allow for recission based on a material misrepresentation 

but indicated that it was “inclined” to certify the question if the Mississippi 

statute so allowed. Miss. R. App. P. 20 (indicating that only “the 

Supreme Court of the United States or [] any United States Court of 

Appeals” may certify “questions or propositions of law” to the Mississippi 

Supreme Court). 

Comity interests also favor certification. The question of whether the 

revised MWCA allows recission based on a material misrepresentation 

presents a novel issue “peculiarly calling for the exercise of judgment by the 

[Mississippi] courts.” McKesson v. Doe, 141 S. Ct. 48, 51 (2020). 

“Speculation by a federal court” about how the 2012 amendments to the 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 22-60579 

9 

MWCA affect an insurer’s ability to void a policy ab initio based on a material 

misrepresentation is inappropriate “when . . . the state courts stand willing 

to address questions of state law on certification.” Arizonans for Official Eng. 

v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 79 (1997) (alteration in original) (internal quotation 

marks and alteration omitted). Finally, we are unaware of any practical 

impediments to certification. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we CERTIFY the following determinative 

question of law to the Mississippi Supreme Court: 

1) Does the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act 

(“MWCA”) allow an insurer to void ab initio a workers’ 

compensation policy based on a material misrepresentation? 

We disclaim any intention or desire that the Mississippi Supreme 

Court confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the question certified. 

We will then resolve this case in accordance with any opinion provided on 

this question by the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Clerk of this Court is 

directed to transmit this certification and request to the Mississippi Supreme 

Court in conformity with the usual practice. 

QUESTION CERTIFIED. 

Case: 22-60579 Document: 00516929686 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/12/2023