2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-21-2004 

# S imon v . U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2945

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S imon v . U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 743. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/743IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
NO. 02-2945
LOUIS S IMON; HOWARD ASHER; HENRY F. MILL ER; SUZANNE PETE RSON, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF B. KE NIN HA RT, DEC EASED *,

Appellant
v. UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA *(Amended in accordanc e with Cler k's Order dated 8/27/02) (D.C. Civi l No. 01-cv- 05671)
Nos. 02-3996, 02-3997
MARY SCHALL IOL , A S PE RSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DENNIS SCHALLIOL, DECEASED

v. JOHN F ARE, JR. , A S PE RSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE

OF JOHN FARE; HART DEL AWARE CORP ORATI ON; UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

### 2 M ary Sch alliol, Appellant in 02-3996 Joh n F are, J r., Appellant in 02-3997 (D.C. Civi l No. 01-cv- 00224)

_______________________________________________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania Distric t Judg e: Ho nora ble M arvin K atz

________________________________________________ Befo re : S LOVITER , AMBRO, andBECKER, Circuit Judges

____________________________________________ ORDER

_____________________________________________ The interlocu tory appeal cam e before us on a c ertification by the District Cou rt pursuan t to 28 U .S.C. §129 2(b), wh ich presented us with the q uestion w hether Indian a’s or Pennsy lvania ’s choi ce-of-l aw rules gover n a suit against the Unite d States by t

he esta tes o f pa ssen ger s kille d in the c rash of a sm all pr ivate aircr aft. On A ugust 20 , 2003, w e filed an op inion, 341 F .3d 193 (3 d Cir. 200 3),
acco mp anied by a certific ation o f the follow ing q uestion s to the I ndian a Su prem e Co urt: (1) whether

a true c onflic t exis ts bet ween Indiana’ s and D.C.’s choice- of-law rul es; and (2) i f there is a t

rue confl ict and Indiana’ s choice- of-law rul es ther efore cont rol per our1 We note that the D istrict Court accurately predicted the Indiana S uprem e Cou rt’s

holding. 

### 3 “last signi ficant

act” t est, how to resol ve a split among the Hubba rd factor s in choosing a jurisdiction’s substantive law whe n one factor points tow ard Indiana , another tow ard Pen nsylvan ia, and the third is indete rmina te, and wh at sub stantive law I ndian a w ould choose under these facts. On M arch 31, 2003, the Indi ana Supreme Court fi led an opi nion, No. 94S00- 0308- CQ-37 7, responding to the certi fied questions. 1 The questi ons certifie d to us by the Dist rict Court now having been ans wered, the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward R. Becker Circuit

Judge DAT ED: April 21, 2004 CH/cc: Michael S. Olin, Esq. Joel S. Perwin, Esq. Arthur G. Raynes, Esq. Stephen E. Ray nes, Esq. Aa ron S. P odh urst, E sq. Terence M. Healy , Esq. Rodney Patton, Esq. Donald B. Kehoe, Esq. Daniel S. Weinstock, Esq. HarryA. Wilson Jr ., Esq. Joseph M. Lamonaca, Esq. J. Arthur Mozley, Esq.